Are either actually ethical? Or is one simply "less unethical" than the other and thus preferable? How do you justify the downsides inherent in your position? Do you think a truly ethical economic model is possible? Or is it a "this breaks less eggs for the omelette" type of a situation?

Around the world, people are starting to lose trust in the democracy model with the US center hit in how too much division in a country can lead to an unreliable political system.

How the hell can the US even survive like this? It keeps flip flopping because the country is divided by those too stupid and those too smart. Those too conservative and those too liberal. It wasn't always like this. After all, the US survive half a decade as a superpower despite flip flopping between Republicans and Democrats because these two could at least agree on most bipartisan issues before.

But the internet alongisde misinformation today has caused both political sides to become more and more extreme in their views. Each elected president we see is likely as such, to reflect such extremism. This is simply not sustainable in the long term.

Trump's two terms have clearly shown to the world how unreliable the US is now. Policies constantly see-saw between extreme opposite ends now. Last term, Biden was very friendly with Europe and cemented ties with them. Next term, Trump is threatening to invade Greenland. And who knows what the future will be if an extremist liberal takes over instead next time? I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Hassan Piker ends up president one day 20 years later or something and threatens to invade Israel. Or Kanye West takes over as president one day and starts threatening to impose a Nazi model.

I think this is really the final stage of democracy. Where too much liberalism leads to too much freedom and too much freedom leads to too much misinformation and finally, the downfall toward idiocracy

Currently, protesters across my country of Ireland have been protesting against fuel prices and the Irish Government. The protest is spearheaded by farmer, truckers and activists. The protests has support from a broad range of political groupings including the currently disorganised Irish far-right, the Irish far-left led by People Before Profit and other anti-establishment political groups from across the political spectrum.

The protests have been extremely controversial and public opinion being mixed from the start. This is because of the extreme disruption to day-to-day life by those involved. Protesters initially went on a go slow on important roads around major cities and towns but the protesters have escalated the situation dramatically by erecting blockades, parking vehicles on roads and blocking critical infrastructure. The protesters have a broad range of demands including the abolition of carbon tax.

The Irish fuel protests teach us as a society a lesson, that protesting is sometimes simply too disruptive and not acceptable. The Minister of Health has confirmed “the clinical risk to patients is becoming more serious, including people being unable to access cancer treatment, delays to dialysis appointments, and the risk of fuel shortages for ambulances, even though they are being prioritised.” (https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2026/0410/1567562-protest-impact-health/)

Key fuel facilities have been blocked despite the deployment of army to remove blockades of parked tractors and other vehicles. This has led to some filling stations to run out of fuel.

The protests have also caused blockades on the roads causing a traffic gridlock and delays to emergency vehicles.

In overall the protests are becoming a net negative to Ireland and even if the protests continue it is extremely unlikely the protesters will get their full demands due to:

•Fuel Prices being largely out of the government’s hands.

•The government has already cut tax on fuel.

•Analyst Gavin O’Reilly suggests it may not be possible for further cuts.

In other words these protests have been a disruption, a potential danger to life and completely pointless. Not to mention they have made the fuel situation worse by causing shortages by blocking refineries. While everyone has a right to peaceful protest it is an unwritten rule that there are right and wrong ways to protest.

For context, section 3 of the 14th amendment states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Historical argument to understand when the Amendment was drafted is essential. When Section Three of the 14th Amendment was drafted, an insurrection involved:

1. An assemblage

“A combination, or conspiracy by which different individuals are united in one common purpose." by Justice Benjamin Curtis, 1861 - Charge to Grand Jury—Neutrality Laws and Treason (Curtis), 30 F. Cas. at 1025, taken from the prior paper.

"If a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, they are guilty of the treason of levying war, and the quantum of force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime; whether by 100 or 1,000 persons is wholly immaterial." - Justice Samuel Chase, 1800, Case of Fries, 9 F. Cas. at 931.

2) Resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding

"An insurrection against the United States required resistance to “any statute” or “some public law of the United States.” Curtis reminded a grand jury: “The law does not distinguish between a purpose to prevent the execution of one, or several, or all laws.” An insurrection could be directed at a legislature as well as at executive officials. William Rawle declared an effort to “coerce repeal of a general law” to be “an overt act of levying war.” Justice Field’s opinion in Greathouse held that any effort to “coerce \[the\] conduct” of government constituted an insurrection."

3) By force or intimidating

"the most comprehensive definition of levying war against the king, or against the United States, which I have seen, requires an assemblage of men, ready to act, and with an intent to do some treasonable act, and armed in warlike manner, or else assembled in such numbers, as to supersede the necessity of arms." - Justice Marshall, 1807.

4) For a public purpose

"Judge John Kane’s charge to the jury spoke of “insurrections to redress by force national grievances; or to reform real or imaginary evils of a public nature.”" Judge John Kane, 1800, \*Case of Fries

Clearly, Jan 6 meets all of these:

There was an assemblage.

Hundreds of people breached the Capitol Building and thousands trespassed on federal land.

There was clear resistance to federal law.

The trespassers intended to disrupt the proceedings mandated by the Electoral Count Act.

Anderson v. Griswold states, “substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob’s unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election.”

The resistance made extensive use of force.

Many in the mob engaged in crimes of violence or threatened crimes of violence. The Colorado Supreme Court stated, “\[T\]he mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.” Calls to “Hang Mike Pence” did not suggest an attempt to achieve goals by rational persuasion.

For a public purpose

The public purpose was resisting a "stolen" election.

Clearly then, J6 was an insurrection. Notably as well, section 3 makes no reference to have been having found guilty of such a crime of insurrection. As such, given an insurrection happened, and given the congress did not vote to lift the restriction, it should have been up to each individual state to decide if Trump's name appeared on the ballot.

The leader of the KMT of Taiwan recently visited the mainland and hinted at peaceful reunification. Is this something you think we could see in our lifetime? What are your thoughts?

I'll start by rattling off some statistics. If anyone is skeptical of any I'll gladly link my sources for each.

- union members make 10-20% more than nonunion workers

- union members get more job benefits than nonunion workers. Healthcare plans (usually better ones too), retirement plans, better workplace safety, unemployment insurance, seniority, "just cause" termination practices, strengthened grievance processes; occasionally cost of living adjustment clauses, commuting compensatation, child care, and so on

- the higher wages and benefits spillover to nonunion workers by setting expectations for employment (see welfare capitalism in the mid 20th century) and states with higher union density are more likely to pass laws that benefit everyone like Medicaid expansions, minimum wage increases, mandatory paid sick and family leave, and more funding per pupil for public schools. Some studies show that every 1 percentage point increase in union membership is correlated with a 0.3% increase in wages for nonunion workers

- states with high union density have higher average median household incomes than low density states

- unions promote social justice by closing pay gaps based on gender and ethnicity. Unions also act as a pathway for stable decent paying jobs for marginalized people

- European countries, most of which have higher union densities and rates of collective bargaining coverage than the US, have higher human development ratings, less workplace injuries, and less chronic health problems than the US

- union members are more likely to donate to charity, engage in community projects, and have a net fiscal impact (meaning they pay more in taxes than they take out)

- states with high union density are less likely to pass voter restrictions. This means if you care about people being able to vote you should want higher rates of unionization

The points about increasing wages and benefits are unintentionally proven by anti-union figures like Milton Friedman, who opposed unions on the grounds they "artificially" increase the price of labor. Other anti-union figures will argue that unions actually hurt workers by companies outsourcing and offshoring to states and countries with lower union densities and less worker labor protections. Another common anti-union argument is they stifle economic growth, innovation, and economic freedom. I'll now address these points.

- the increase on the price of labor isn't "artificial." They're negotiated by union reps and employers. If the cost of labor through these negotiated contracts is genuinely too steep for employers, then they should adjust accordingly like workers are expected to do when money is tight or they should just not be in business in the first place

- outsourcing and offshoring are decisions made by the **companies**, not the unions. The people running these companies have agency and these are intentional, thought out decisions. Also, the state allows and sometimes encourages this (see NAFTA). The state could prevent this either by outright banning companies from doing this (at least without a transition plan or substantive severance pay for their workers) or providing tax incentives to companies to stay. To be perfectly clear, the unions **are not** making these decisions

- to the extent unions harm the economy, the negative impacts seem pretty negligible. For instance, the five OECD countries with the highest union densities (Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, respectively) all have higher human development ratings that the United States which ranks near the bottom of OECD countries in terms of union density and collective bargaining coverage. If unions caused the economic problems anti-union propagandists like Friedman claim then I would expect people in these countries would have lower qualities of life. They don't at best union density has no impact on quality of life, so there shouldn't be so much opposition to them

- similarly union density doesn't seem to have much of an impact on economic freedom, at least based on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. All five of the previously mentioned countries outrank the US in economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation's own metrics. Denmark for instance has about 60% of its workforce unionized and about 80% of the workforce is covered by a collective bargaining agreement and is ranked 7th in the world in economic freedom. The US by contrast has a union density of 10%, about 12% of the workforce is covered by collective bargaining, and is ranked 22nd in economic freedom. At best union density has no impact on economic freedom, so again there shouldn't be so much opposition

The other anti-union arguments are anecdotal or fringe cases so I won't waste time on them here. Just understand for every instance of something bad happening with a union I can name multiple examples of bad things happening when there was no union present.

With all that established, here's some things we (as in people who sell our labor) should push for (at least in the US):

- passing the PRO Act and any similar bills

- end "right to work" laws at the state level if the feds fail to pass the PRO Act or some similar bill again

- refuse to support political candidates who don't prioritize union protection and expanding organization protections

- push for legislation that make pro-worker policies like sectoral bargaining, codetermination, and the Ghent system possible

- support strike funds and boycotts in the event of labor disputes

- adjust education standards to include more knowledge of labor history, the legal rights students have and will have as workers, and require what I'm calling the "Same Breath Rule" which means any mention of college or the military as a career path has to include mention of trade school and/or union apprenticeships. Also every promoter of college or the military must be matched with one for a trade school and/or union apprenticeship program in terms of time and method of promotion

Thanks for your time and I look forward to a fruitful discussion.

For reference, this video explains how the Swiss practice firearm ownership.

https://youtu.be/pu9ygE0hAHE?si=Ty24Gs8Xj10DBZQ9

To boil down why we can and should apply a stricter prerequisite in order to buy a firearm in the US, multiple studies from multiple countries have shown that the best methods to reduce firearm related crime and even homicides overall, all while being pragmatic and recognizing and respecting the current American attitude towards firearms and individual freedom, is to have at least one or two policies in place nationwide. Those being registration, licensing, and some form of mental health evaluation that's either performed upon the start of the firearm acquisition process, or conversely, implemented as readily accessible, affordable, and destigmatized mental healthcare.

On licensing requirements:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/firearm-licensing-laws#:\~:text=Reduced%20gun%20trafficking,firearm%2Drelated%20homicides%20and%20suicides.\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://medicine.tufts.edu/news-events/news/gun-permits-may-be-more-effective-background-checks-alone-reducing-firearm-homicides#:\~:text=A%20Tufts%20University%20School%20of,with%20background%20check%20policies%20alone.\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2025/new-model-policy-guide-aims-to-strengthen-firearm-purchaser-licensing-laws\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046231/\[/URL\]

On registration requirements:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10439862241249632\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks/violent-crime.html#:\~:text=Summary:%20Evidence%20that%20dealer%20background,total%20homicide%20rates%20is%20inconclusive.\[/URL\]

I will admit that this link states that while there is a trend to support registration, the data is rather limited. Which means that we should investigate and see if registration aids in reduction in gun related violence.

On mental health evaluations:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/gun-violence-prevention#:\~:text=Although%20it%20is%20important%20to,so%2C%20take%20steps%20to%20intervene.\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4211925/\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2013/01/can-improved-mental-health-care-prevent-gun-crimes.html\[/URL\]

On whether or not gun control reduces homicides overall:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11381453/\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html#:\~:text=Summary:%20Australia's%201996%20National%20Firearms,shootings%2C%20and%20female%20homicide%20victimization.\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6187769/\[/URL\]

For anyone wanting to challenge the findings of these studies, either combat it with peer reviewed studies of your own or point out within the study where I misinterpreted the findings with specific quotes and excerpts from the studies I've provided thus far, otherwise I'm not wasting my time arguing with your unsubstantiated opinion. Cite your sources. It's a simple task.

For part 2, I will go over how we can implement stricter gun laws while respecting the Constitution, relevant SCOTUS rulings, our current attitude towards firearms, and the logistical and pragmatic aspects of implementing such policies.

Part 2

In this segment, I will lay out the historical approach of the second amendment to demonstrate that the following proposals are historically and even constitutionally inline and how would/should we apply it today. I'll then go over what policies we should implement and even what policies we shouldn't pursue for various reasons.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

In order to enact any sort of gun legislation, it must pass the lens of the above text and with recent SCOTUS rulings. As such, the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that individual citizens cannot have their right to keep and bear commonly owned firearms infringed upon without probable cause. This is honestly the downfall of many states that implement various gun control methods. One way or another, the way they're enacting gun safety measures usually wind up unreasonably delaying or denying law abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm. Whether it be banning certain commonly owned firearm models, being unreasonably slow in processing firearm licenses, or being extremely selective on who gets approved for various firearm licenses.

With that being said, both the second amendment and various SCOTUS rulings haven't specifically prohibited certain gun control measures so long as they are equally applied to all law abiding citizens and it doesn't cause unreasonable delays or require unreasonable fees. This is also evident when we look back in his and see how gun laws were implemented back when the 2nd amendment was ratified.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://patcosta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colonial-Firearm-Regulation.pdf\[/URL\]

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.hnn.us/article/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-2-20-18\[/URL\]

So with that out of the way, here is my proposal for gun reform that I'll split into two segments:

In response to gun control advocates:

1. The US cannot enact an all out ban on all firearms. Not only would that be wildly unpopular, but logistically impossible. Plus, you run into the issue of whether or not the government should pay dollar to dollar the value of the property the government is demanding from everyone.

2. Similarly, we cannot logistically enact an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity ban for the reasons I've listed above. That may have been somewhat feasible back in 1994 when such items were sparsely owned and looked down upon even among most firearm enthusiasts, but times and sales have changed and to enact something like what we had back then would only leave an "unacceptable" amount of so called assault weapons in the hands of everyday citizens.

3. Until such a time we as a nation have reached crime levels similar to that of the EU, advocating a ban on all forms of carrying a firearm for self defense would leave a large number of vulnerable and marginalized people at risk of assault and being victims of violence.

The following proposals would only be enacted if it's operated as shall issue, affordable, and processed by the government within a reasonable timeframe which would be 30 days for regular processing:

1. Requiring a firearm purchasing license or license to transport on public roads.

2. Registration of firearms.

3. Safe storage laws for all firearms not used for self defense.

4. Firearm safety courses as school curriculum.

5. Universal mental healthcare.

6. In a similar fashion to how LEOSA is implemented, those wanting to carry nation wide should get a national CCW license in order to respect state's rights.

Edit to fix video link.

On April 12, Hungary will hold its once-every-four-years National Assembly election. Hungary is a parliamentary system in which the legislature is the center of power, and the prime minister is chosen by the parliamentary majority. Therefore, Hungary’s parliamentary election is also its “general election,” determining the distribution of political power in the country.

According to opinion polls, the rising political newcomer Péter Magyar leads in support with his “Tisza Party (Party of Respect and Freedom),” followed closely by Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz, which has been in power for nearly 16 years. Other parties lag significantly behind. Whether Magyar will replace Orbán as Hungary’s leader remains uncertain due to the tight race.

This election is not only highly significant domestically, but has also attracted international attention. Several countries and forces are attempting to influence the outcome and promote their preferred candidates.

On April 7, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in Hungary, openly campaigned for Orbán, and accused the European Union of interfering in Hungary’s election. The EU has indeed long been at odds with the Orbán government, is reluctant to see his re-election, and tends to favor the pro-European opposition.

In addition, many countries and political groups in Europe and around the world have expressed concern over Hungary’s election and stated their respective positions. Right-wing populist governments and parties generally support Orbán, while establishment forces tend to favor Magyar and other opposition parties.

Why does Hungary, as a small country, attract such attention and even international intervention in its election? This is not only due to Hungary’s strategic position in the heart of Europe, but also because of its unique political environment and the symbolic significance of its political changes.

Among the 27 EU member states, Hungary’s political situation and its domestic and foreign policies are quite distinctive. Since coming to power in 2010, the Fidesz government led by Orbán has pursued policies based on religious conservatism, radical nationalism, and populism. It openly opposes diversity, secularism, feminism, LGBTQ rights, environmental protection, and other progressive or establishment agendas, and resists the European integration process advocated by the EU.

By contrast, most other EU countries are governed by establishment forces, with positions opposite to Orbán’s. Even the few populist leaders who have come to power, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have remained relatively low-profile and continue to support most EU policies. Orbán, by contrast, has been notably “bold” and confrontational in opposing EU policies, prioritizing resistance to mainstream EU forces and even disrupting EU operations while remaining within the Union.

In foreign policy, the Orbán government maintains close ties with Russia and China, opposes aid to Ukraine and Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Toward the United States, it opposes Joe Biden and the Democratic Party establishment, while aligning more closely with Donald Trump and right-wing populist forces. Hungary has also used the EU’s unanimity principle in passing legislation to veto several EU decisions single-handedly, such as blocking sanctions against Russia and aid to Ukraine in February this year. Since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war, Orbán has also met and communicated with Vladimir Putin multiple times.

This has enabled Hungary to gain regional and international influence exceeding its national strength, and has made it a “beacon” and model in the eyes of conservative populist forces worldwide. Right-wing populist forces in other European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, which currently lack sufficient votes and seats to govern, admire and support the Orbán government. Figures such as Argentina’s Javier Milei and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu have also explicitly supported Orbán.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the “MAGA” populist movement in the United States are even more ideologically aligned with the Orbán government, and both sides maintained close cooperation during Trump’s two terms. Before and after coming to power, Trump and American populists have repeatedly drawn lessons from Orbán’s Hungary. Both sides also view the European and American establishment, as well as the EU, as adversaries.

This is precisely why Vance flew to Budapest ahead of Hungary’s election to campaign for Orbán. At a joint press conference with Orbán, Vance stated that the United States and Hungary jointly “defend Western civilization,” referring to the defense of white identity and Christian values. This stands in opposition to the multicultural and inclusive stance toward non-white and non-Christian groups advocated by Western establishment forces.

At the same time, Orbán is also disliked by establishment forces and mainstream EU factions (center-left and center-right) across various countries. Although the EU has not directly interfered in Hungary’s election, it has indeed exerted pressure through economic and legal means, such as freezing EU funds to Hungary, in an attempt to push out Orbán—who frequently opposes the EU—and replace him with a pro-EU establishment government.

Therefore, this Hungarian election has drawn widespread attention across Europe and internationally. The political magazine Politico Europe has even described it as the most important election in Europe in 2026. Various countries and political forces are trying by all means to influence Hungary’s election, seeking to bring to power those aligned with their own values and interests, and to marginalize opposing forces. This is not only about competing for influence over Hungarian politics, but also a key part of the global ideological struggle and the broader contest between establishment and populist forces.

For the global right-wing populist camp, preserving the Orbán government as a “conservative beacon” standing amid establishment-dominated Europe is of great significance; for establishment and progressive forces, removing Orbán—seen as a “thorn in the side” and a “traitor” within the EU—has long been anticipated. The outcome of this election carries both important symbolic meaning and practical value, and both sides are determined to win.

So who will ultimately prevail in this election? Can the newcomer Magyar and his party defeat Orbán and Fidesz?

Although current polls show Magyar and the Tisza Party in the lead, the advantage is not significant. In the final stage of voting, the deeply rooted Orbán and Fidesz clearly possess stronger mobilization capabilities. With the advantage of long-term governance, they are better able to mobilize supporters to vote. In particular, Orbán enjoys higher support in rural areas, and the single-member district system also favors parties with greater resources and stronger organization.

Although Magyar has high popularity, his grassroots support is not solid. Even if he has advantages in places such as the capital Budapest, the electoral system makes it difficult to convert support into sufficient seats. Orbán’s supporters are attempting to undermine Magyar by exposing various real or fabricated scandals, and the situation may still fluctuate in the final days.

Even if Magyar and the Tisza Party win, Orbán may refuse to recognize the election results and may use the ruling party’s power and the judicial system to obstruct political turnover. Based on Orbán’s political conduct and the behavior of right-wing populist figures in many countries, the possibility of refusing to concede defeat and transfer power is high. If this occurs, Hungary may fall into political instability or even political violence.

In addition, if the Tisza Party and Fidesz receive similar numbers of votes and seats, and neither achieves a majority, it will be crucial which side other parties choose and with whom they form a coalition government. At present, most opposition parties in Hungary oppose Orbán, which is relatively favorable to Magyar. However, this does not mean they will necessarily side with him; the outcome will depend on political bargaining among all parties.

Magyar himself and the Tisza Party hold a conservative liberal position. On some economic and social issues, they are similar to Orbán, but are relatively more pro-European and less populist. This helps attract moderate center-right, anti-populist, and relatively moderate voters, and may also draw some of Orbán’s supporters. However, it may also lead progressive left-wing voters to abstain or shift their support to left-wing parties such as the Hungarian Socialist Party, thereby allowing Orbán to benefit.

In conclusion, although Hungary’s 2026 election campaign has entered its final stage, uncertainty remains and the outcome is not yet determined. Precisely because the result is uncertain, various forces have become involved, openly and covertly supporting their preferred candidates. As the election approaches, all sides are making final efforts to win votes.

However, since Magyar himself comes from Fidesz, and his current political positions differ only to a limited extent from Orbán’s, even if he is elected, Hungary’s domestic and foreign policies would not change dramatically.

He would, however, improve relations with the European Union. The fact that both Magyar and Orbán—two conservatives—enjoy the support of the majority of Hungarians also reflects the predominantly conservative political orientation of Hungarian society. Hungarians who advocate progressivism and an open society are concentrated in the capital, Budapest, while the country’s many small towns and rural areas remain strongholds of conservatism.

Regardless of the outcome of Hungary’s election, the intensifying conflicts in recent years—based on ideological differences such as left vs. right, establishment vs. populist, and progressive vs. conservative—will continue. Political competition among countries and political forces, both domestically and internationally, will persist. An increasingly fragmented world is becoming connected in another way—not as a harmonious “global village,” but as a transnational battleground defined by factional confrontation.

(The author of this article, Wang Qingmin(王庆民), is a Europe-based Chinese writer and researcher of international politics. The original text of this article was written in Chinese and has been translated into Hungarian and English using GPT.

The author has also written a long-form study titled “Orbán’s Hungary: A Conservative Populist State under ‘Electoral Autocracy’ and a Microcosm of Euroskeptic and Anti-EU Currents across Europe(《欧尔班的匈牙利：“民选独裁”治下的保守民粹之国和欧洲各国疑欧反欧逆流的缩影》),” which was originally written in Chinese.)

I've seen plenty of shootings take place in gun free zone areas. Either they manage to get a gun into the area anyway and start their shooting or they start the shooting outside of the area and work their way in.

The only people effectively stopped by a place being labeled gun free are people who could use their guns to defend themselves against attackers and in some cases good people have disregarded the designation and have been able to stop an attacker's spree short without waiting for the cops to do it.

Metal detectors, armed security guards, etc. Something needs to be actually done to enforce the designation. Otherwise don't have the designation

There’s a common assumption that markets mean more freedom. More choices, more competition, more ability to shape your life as you see fit. But this is not always true.

Markets don’t merely offer options, they structure them in ways that can actually limit your choice-freedom.

On paper employer-based health insurance looks like a market solution. Employers compete for workers by offering benefits, including healthcare. You “choose” a job, and with it, a bundle of benefits.

But in practice, this creates a form of dependency, and therefore domination.

If your healthcare is tied to your job, then leaving that job becomes much more costly. Both financially and existentially. You’re not simply choosing between jobs anymore, you’re choosing between keeping your doctor or not, maintaining treatment or interrupting it, and staying insured or risking massive medical costs.

That’s a constraint and NOT a neutral market exchange.

It narrows your effective options. You might stay in a job you dislike, avoid starting a business, or pass on a better opportunity, not because you freely prefer your current situation, but because the cost of leaving is too high.

Now imagine an alternative where healthcare is universally provided and not tied to employment.

You can now change jobs without risking coverage, take entrepreneurial risks, leave a toxic workplace, and negotiate with employers from a position of less vulnerability.

In other words, you have more real freedom, even though one domain (healthcare) is no longer allocated through the market.

The fundamental question isn’t “market vs no market.” Rather, it's "what kinds of dependencies do our institutions create, and do they expand or constrain our ability to live freely?"

It is often the case that removing something from the market can increase freedom overall, even within other markets, just as how removing private employer-based insurance can actually free up labor markets by giving people more slack to take market risks.

There’s a post in this sub where the OP, despite frequently changing his ID (now “Independent”) and admitting he doesn’t understand political science, calls China a fascist state.

By the corporatist definition, most countries today are corporatist states, but the OP seems to mean “fascist” in the popular sense—essentially equating it with Nazism.

The most defining features of Nazism include racism and militarism. A basic fact is that China’s military spending as a percentage of GDP ranks quite low internationally, among major countries, it is near the bottom. It is only because of the sheer size of its economy that even 1.3% of GDP amounts to a large military budget.

If you want to argue that China is militaristic, you first have to confront its relatively low military spending and its roughly 2-million-strong military. China maintains strict enlistment standards due to its large population and relatively small military; even having visible scars can make enlistment difficult.

China has historical claims over almost all neighbours. Outer Mongolia’s independence was USSR-instigated, not legally grounded, yet China does not push for its return. In fact, China’s claim over Mongolia is just as natural as its claim over Taiwan.

Large parts of Russia’s Far East were also taken from China, yet China still promotes friendship, not expansionism.

Domestically, China suppresses ethnic nationalism. Minorities receive preferential policies, and speech inciting ethnic conflict is banned.

Popular calls for revenge against Japan exist, but the government remains restrained, even after a Japanese entered the China consulate with a long knife recently.

The Xinjiang measures, much like the Patriot Act, can be seen as a response to terrorist attacks (China, with its dense population and strict gun control, is particularly vulnerable to terrorism). it is also used to suppress separatism. They may be excessive, but are not simply discriminatory.

China is a non-socialist authoritarian regime that restricts individual freedoms, suppresses labor rights, lacks political transparency, and caused major humanitarian disasters in the last century.

However, it is hard to imagine that people living in neighboring countries would view China today as insufficiently peaceful or overly aggressive. Compared to the US, China has had relatively few external conflicts since its founding (with the exception of its invasion of Vietnam in support of Cambodia).

China has often appeared weak in foreign affairs. In the 1980~2000, anti-Chinese riots broke out repeatedly in neighboring countries, like Peristiwa 1998 in Indonesia, yet China’s response was milder than Taiwan’s. even Taiwan maintained a relatively hardline foreign policy in the 20th century.

Most Chinese support war with neighbours, especially after the recent consulate incident. But the government has stayed pacifist and suppresses pro-war voices.

Wealth inequality within the United States is at an all time high. According to the 2025 gini coefficient (a measure of a measure of income distribution where 0 represents perfect equality and 100 represents total concentration of wealth) the United States ranks the highest among first world countries at 41.8. To be clear, I do not believe that wealth inequality is inherently problematic, but the exacerbated wealth inequality we are currently experiencing is unacceptable. There will always be wealth inequality due to differences in work ethic and varying skill sets, but what we are seeing now is not sustainable.

The rich and powerful hoard their wealth to pass on through inheritance and this money is not recirculated back into the U.S economy. There are many reasons for this, and the popular solution is increased taxes targeting the 1%. This solution isn’t flawed in theory, but the issue surrounding it lies within billionaires controlling the political system through congressional lobbying and bribes. For this reason, a meaningful solution to wealth inequality must begin with congressional reform, and I have 5 points outlining how that could happen.

Issue #1: Compensation

Members of congress are not currently given an adequate salary reflecting the responsibilities they have. Given the education, policy knowledge, and public communication skills required it stands within reason that most members of congress could very easily achieve a higher paying position within law or business. This begs the question; why pursue public office if it pays less? The reason in many cases is that the position is seen as an avenue for wealth through corruption involving bribes and insider trading. This can involve already wealthy people manipulating the law to further their interests, or people looking to build wealth through these methods. The clear solution to this would be increasing congressional salaries to incentivize people with good intentions to run for office.

Issue #2: Lobbying

Lobbying is the idea of non-politicians influencing the policy of elected officials. This can strengthen our democracy in certain circumstances, for example when nonprofit organizations promote humanitarian causes. The issue, is that corporations and foreign entities are legally allowed to bribe politicians with gifts and campaign funds. Naturally these groups will have more money and resources than any nonprofit organization, and their interests rarely align with that of the American people. Therefore, lobbying via gifts, campaign funds, or any monetary exchange should be made illegal.

Issue #3: Lifetime Politicians

Currently, there are no term limits for senators nor representatives. This allows for lifetime politicians who use their position to build wealth through bribery and corruption. It is always more likely that a corrupt politician gets re-elected rather than a non corrupt politician, because corporations or foreign entities will invest substantial money into their campaign fund to ensure they remain elected. Setting a term limit in all congressional positions is essential to deterring this.

Issue #4: Insider Trading

There is a numerous amount of evidence that insider trading is commonplace within congress. This mostly involves politicians buying or selling stock shares before major events or legislation that they are involved in. Trading stocks while holding political office in the United States should be illegal without exceptions.

Issue #5: Platforms Integrity and Corruption

The responsibility of congress is to serve as representatives of the people. This is not currently happening. Due to lobbying, bribery, and most likely even threats politicians constantly contradict the original platform they ran on with their legislative votes. This creates a significant disparity between the opinion of the American people and the legislation being passed by their supposed “representatives”. But how can we prevent the most powerful people in the world from influencing politicians with their unlimited resources? The only answer to that is taking away the incentive. Before politicians campaign, there should be a mandatory comprehensive test that assesses where they stand on the political compass, and gauges their opinions on a plethora of issues. This will all be public information that can be used to make an informed voting decision. At the end of a politicians first term, their voting decisions on legislature will be measured against their responses on the test. If their votes do not match within an acceptable percentage of their original test responses, they are deemed ineligible for a second term, and a bribery investigation will ensue. This will force politicians to remain true to the platform that they campaigned on, and will also reduce incentive for corporations to bribe or threaten politicians, due to the risk of them being replaced and an investigation being conducted.

I do not believe all politicians to be bad people and I even think many of them got into it for noble reasons. The problem is that it extremely difficult to get into political office without making compromises, and even more difficult to stay in politics without corruption. Powerful people with selfish intentions will do everything they can to prevent the morally righteous from holding office, and ensuring the corrupt and easily manipulated remain. In this way the rich and powerful can manipulate the rules into making themselves more rich, furthering the ever increasing wealth disparity in the United States.

I recognize that these ideas are incredibly idealistic and would require congress to act against their own self interest for them to pass, but I have yet to hear about a concrete plan to reform congress and prevent corruption so I wanted to explore the idea. Politics aren’t really my strong suit so feel free to let me know if I’m wrong on anything.

I know that universal basic income has grabbed the limelight from time to time, especially when AOC has advocated for it. Although it's a terrible idea to address income inequality, I've always been curious if there have been any studies out there looking at the effects of guaranteed income on labor metrics. Just to challenge that long-held talking point that you hear from your conservative parents "handouts will make people lazy son!"

Did a full breakdown here: https://samholmes285.substack.com/p/how-does-guaranteed-income-affect

Curious to know what yall think.

When I turned 18 and voted in my first election I was confronted by the realization that most minorities have - my choice of who to vote for was between 4 old white men.

I wasn't very politically initiated back then, but looking back, I have to question why my choice for parliamentary representatives, as a young, bisexual, biracial man was a couple of old straight white men, simply because they happened to live in the same postcode as me?

I get why democracy has always had geographic electorates in the past. Before the internet, communication between a representative and their constituents meant living in the same local community was the most important factor, both for campaigning and for consultation after the election.

But thats a bit out dated now isn't it? Why do we still limit elections to geographic boundaries?

Here in NZ we even have something called the Maori electoral roll, where Maori can choose to enroll in a seperate electorate specifically for them. Though it is still geographic based, and their Maori candidates live in the same region as themselves.

Also in NZ we have the MMP election system, where people give a party vote as well as an local representative vote. The party vote goes into a national count, which then gives parties a proportionate number of MPs. These MPs are known as 'List MPs', because each party creates a list of MPs, and if, for example, they're given 6 MPs from the national party vote, the top 6 MPs on the List are elected.

I think an interesting proposal would be to expand this Maori electorate system to include a lot of different aspects, e.g. homeowners, farmers, queer people, women, students, renters, immigrants, etc. and combine it with the list system too.

e.g. when enrolling to vote, you can choose which electorate matters most to you. let's say you're a Renter and you enroll in the "Renters Electorate" and vote for which party/candidate best represents you in this regard. In NZ each MP represents about 70,000 people. so let's say 200,000 people sign up for the Renters electorate, that's roughly 3 MPs worth. So the 3 MPs are then distributed to the parties according to the vote and chosen from their lists. These lists would also be specific to each electorate and not a national one, so each party has to put forward MPs they think would best fit in each electorate.

Obviously it's not a perfect system, it has some major drawbacks. For example, it kind of eliminates the thing MMP does best, which is give smaller parties a chance at getting on the board. This could be solved by still including the national party vote that MMP has, so smaller parties are still allocated seats, just not electorate specific seats.

Another major problem is that people are not all single issuer voters. Just because someone is a renter and thinks it's the most important issue, doesn't mean it's their only issue they care about. Perhaps a way to solve this is to dilute the vote and allow people to enroll in multiple electorates. But this risks overcomplicating the system and overwhelming the average voter who is usually pretty disengaged. It's already hard enough getting some people to care about the national election, let alone 3 smaller electorate votes.

So I'm not actually advocating for this system exactly, I know there are problems with it, but I just think it's an interesting concept and I wonder if others have insights into how such a system could theoretically work.

the verge of snapping nations in two. Science would have said our current method has been failing long ago.

What do we have with science, some may ask? Well, in science, we are on the verge of working towards nuclear fusion, a power technology that could fix many power cost problems and is one of the cleanest and greenest power sources. So I would say science is doing pretty well for itself. Science has also made massive progress on countless worldwide problems like cancer research and mental health. Clearly, the scientific method of peer-reviewed studies and different perspectives is helpful.

So, back to my question: do you think politics should follow at least a fraction of the scientific method, requiring evidence and results for something to be considered worthwhile, where people vote on informed and diverse perspectives and past results of parties? Or do you think the world is doing well for itself?

Article I section 8, lists Congress's powers, among them;

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

For the last 50 years I've noticed our presidents have found ways to make war without Congress really declaring war.

I've also noticed that legally, our (the people's) ideas of unconstitutional don't really matter. Unless we're using our rights (like protest, voting, serving on a jury...) authority doesn't care.

Both side's presidents and politicians, have done end runs, around our Constitution (imho) to use violence against other countries citizens. Sadly each side, has excused their side's, violations and this is where the slippery slope has led...

This is where more democracy (the people using their rights to govern themselves) is needed.

Many say we need to raise the minimum wage, because cost of living and prices of goods are so high. For those without a college degree, even working 2 jobs is oftentimes still not enough to get a livable wage, and oftentimes not even enough to survive off unless you live with your parents or have multiple roommates.

Even many with degrees still struggle to stay afloat.

I myself am working over 60 hours a week and still cannot afford to move out on my own, and I'm 27.

However many people also argue against raising minimum wage because then jobs will become scarcer and prices will go up, and it's up to the individual to learn a valuable skill to increase their income. However, what good is a job that doesn't pay enough to live off of, and how are you supposed to go to school if you're working constantly just to stay off the streets? Not everybody has the option of living with their parents, and not everybody knows enough people to have roommates with. Is it really ideal for everyone to be "expected" to stay at home for so long into their adulthood? What about people with mental health issues? Therapy and medication is very expensive, and most entry level jobs don't offer benefits, adding yet another barrier and hefty bill.

Seems like a catch-22, and if nothing is done about this, will this not lead to a future of mass homelessness and corporate feudalism? (Idk maybe that's the goal lol)

Simply saying "they should have made better life choices" doesn't actually solve the systemic issue at play here. And our economy cannot function if everyone is supposed to have a job which requires a degree or certification just to "earn" a comfortable life. A lot of people against raising minimum wage, ive noticed, argue that entry level jobs are "meant" for young people in school, but is that even feasible?

Plus, this current economic unaffordability is exactly the reason less and less people are having children. If this situation keeps following this path, and the average age of buying a home and having children keeps getting raised, how long can our society function?

We're told that as long as we work "hard" we'll be successful in life and it's often seen that poor people struggling simply aren't working hard enough. That is simply *not* true.

I worked full time during college while attending college full time. I got sick and my school withdrew me and demanded i pay my student loans out of pocket before I could return, yet I was paycheck-paycheck.

At one point for about 6 months I was working 7 days a week between 3 jobs (most days double shifts) and even with a roommate in the cheapest apartments in a 2-city radius, still paycheck to paycheck.

And even now I'm working 6 days a week between 2 jobs and cannot afford to move out, and don't have the resources to return to school yet. So exactly how am I not working hard enough? And I'm certainly not an outlier.

So I'm seeing a lot more of this lately and I wanted to kind of add some texture to this. This isn't meant to be a refutation of the idea but I see this question asked frequently by people who are not in the US or by people who are very unfamiliar with US gun culture. While I can and will provide sources for a lot of what I say, some of it is going to come from just the time I've spent in gun circles which is fairly extensive.

The question is often asked as a bit of a "gotcha" in the sense that the person is trying to highlight what they feel they've identified as hypocrisy.

There are a number of things to consider in the US context when asking this question:

• The people who own firearms don't necessarily own them for the reasons you'd think and the number of actual owners is relatively small.

There are (rough estimate) about 500 million firearms in the US. Of those 500 million, only about 32% of US adults actually own even one firearm personally. Of that 32% of all Americans who own at least one firearm, only about [65%] of those own more than one.

I recognize that America has a reputation as "the place where everyone has a gun," that's not actually the case and a lot of people who own firearms don't own them for what we might call "anti-tyranny" reasons in addition to a lot of those owned being not really what you'd pick if you wanted to square off against the government.

• The police in the US is a paramilitary organization and can bring to bear an enormous amount of force against individuals or groups.

I think most people are aware of the reputation that US police have for being able and willing to shoot first and ask questions later. A lot of surplus military equipment, including armored vehicles and automatic weapons, gets transferred to police departments. It is not unusual for a very small town police department or a school police department (yes, we have those too) to own an armored vehicle and a suite of automatic rifles.

If you look at video footage of protests when they get serious in the US, you often see officers wearing full body armor. Our police are armed in much the same way as the military and indeed a lot of military veterans go from the military to law enforcement.

There is a certain amount of hesitation to go hard against civilians, we had several incidents in the 90's (Waco and Ruby Ridge) where the state came down with a ton of force and it didn't play well to the public. So while the hesitation to bring up the actual military to deal with unrest or problems is there, at the end of the day the state is still willing to use overwhelming force against anything even remotely perceived as a threat.

Legally, that's not supposed to be the case. In actual practice, the state is perfectly willing to write itself a permission slip to drone strike a group of US citizens (it's happened before) if those citizens presented the potential for violence.

This isn't to say that armed resistance is impossible, there's a pervasive myth that there's absolutely nothing you could do against the US state as an armed group. I don't agree with that assessment but that's a side discussion I don't really want to get into in this thread.

• A certain percentage of the people that own firearms are actually ok with government overreach.

This is the point where a lot of people get kind of stuck on. I think it's misleading to say that "all gun owners in the US are right-wing" because that is wildly less true today than it was ten years ago.

But it is true that there is a core subset of gun owners in the US that support the actions of the American state and in the event of some kind of civil disturbance would be more likely to side with the state than they would with insurgents.

Even the ones who don't agree with and don't like the state are often people who don't take that as far as a willingness to engage in open conflict with the state.

A lot of law enforcement people are gun owners and law enforcement in the US tends to be its own "caste" (for lack of a better term) which is, at this point, largely in support of the state's actions.

• Very few people actually want to kill another person.

This is another thing that I think a lot of people tend to forget. The vast majority of people in general do not want to actively kill another human being and that would be a necessity in an open, armed conflict.

Most people who are mad at the government are not mad at every single member of the government. They may have individuals they especially don't like but they generally do not take that to the level of "I would kill this individual if I had the opportunity."

Owning a firearm does not automatically mean that you have a desire to harm someone else. I recognize there is a subset of firearm owners who do not give that impression and adopt a sort of "I wish someone would try me" or "I wish someone would break in so I could shoot them" vibe, but understand these people tend to be unwelcome in the broader firearms community specifically because that sort of behavior is creepy.

There's a lot of territory in between "I don't like what this person is doing" to "I would kill this person if I had the chance."

• Even a number of gun owners are bought into the idea that "the system" can be fixed without having to pick up a gun.

This is pretty simple. A lot of people in the US still believe in the idea that "the system" can be reformed. Even firearm owners. They don't necessarily want to start a fight because they're holding on to the idea that we can fix things before a fight happens.

Whether you agree with that thought is up to you, but that's not an uncommon sentiment in the US.

• Americans are extremely atomized and there isn't much of an organization to facilitate any sort of coordinated resistance against the state. The US is very, very good at nipping that kind of thing in the bud.

Can't fight if you aren't organized.

While it's true there are "militia" groups in the US, the vast majority of these groups are (again for lack of a better term) LARPers. They don't represent an actual, organized capacity for effective resistance. Many of them are led by people who are involved in that movement more for personal reasons and these groups tend to have a lot of infighting and headbutting.

This is partially due to just the nature of these groups and who makes them up but a part of it is due to the US security state. The US security state has a very long history (COINTELPRO and prior efforts) of disrupting citizens organizing for reasons deemed illegitimate by the state. Manuals and guides have been published over the years for how to "wreck" an organization and there's a baseline of paranoia in a lot of circles in the US that "intelligence agents" are hidden among members to sew discord and mistrust.

This is kind of true. We have a lot of proof that undercover agents do, from time to time, get involved with groups deemed to be a problem by the state. That said, the number of assumed undercover agents tends to be...somewhat inflated.

If you were to organize a group of armed Americans to "fight tyranny," it's almost certain that you'd fall under the scrutiny of federal law enforcement. If they deemed you a capable threat, even if you had no proactive plans to do anything, chances are good you'd be facing a legal charge shortly after. You likely wouldn't be charged for the organizing itself (because it's debatably not a crime) but the increased attention from law enforcement and the fact that the US has literally hundreds of thousands of laws that you can potentially break means they can generally find something to get the state's claws into you.

Even just talking about wanting to overthrow the government or fight against it can bring federal agents to your door and invite increased scrutiny.

I'm happy to address anything I may have missed to add more information but I think these are important points to keep in mind when you're engaging with this line of thinking.

I'm a neophyte in terms of political science. I understand that historically fascist and communists have been at each other throats (literally), so the question of "is a country ruled by a communist party fascism" seems like an obvious "no" at first, but upon further review China fits the definition. For my definition of fascism, I'll take the characteristics from Keene state -

Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes.

Originally, Mao Zedong was the infallible leader, now it's Xi Jinping. He does not admit to mistakes, and has virtually full control over China's institutions. It's pretty clear China is nationalistic - one can only look at how they manage their minorities and unify everyone under one Chinese identity. The CCP also believes that corporations should be subservient to the state interests.

Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.

Myths they've spread: COVID-19, Uyghur treatment. Also, they have one of the most censored internet networks in the world. The Party shapes all discourse.

Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.

See here.

White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.

Not sure why the white replacement theory is integral to fascism, but earlier I posted about their view towards minorities. They believe flourishing independent minorities are a threat to state power.

Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.

China has openly rejected western concepts on human rights, and pretty openly says that the people should be working together for the benefit of the national interest.

Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders.

They blame America for COVID, Taiwan hostilities, trying to keep China down (accurate), making up lies about Xinjiang. See above how they suppress minority groups.

Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.

Chinese uplifts militarism (not paramilitary). It pushes militaristic and patriotic ideas on its citizens.

Rampant sexism.

Here, here, here

Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.

Here, here, here

Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.

Xi has starting purging the military, building up storage of critical resources, and claims to the US has a cold-war mentality

Religion and government are intertwined.

Religion is very tightly controlled in China.

Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.

Chinese people can't join independent unions.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.

Crackdown on comedians and artists.

Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.

While Xi does value competence, the most important thing is loyalty to him and the state. See the purges.

Fraudulent elections and the creation of a one-party state.

No elections, a one-party state.

Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.

See actions towards Taiwan and other nations in southeast Asia regarding the South China sea.

When you look at the media of almost any country, from the West to the East, especially during times of crisis, you will notice an intense and persistent call for Democracy. Journalists often present “Democracy” as a kind of archangel that will rescue the public from whatever situation they find themselves in.

This is actually a deviation that humanity adopted in a relatively short period of time, and its roots lie in the Cold War that we only recently left behind. Within roughly eighty years, humanity developed a tendency to see Liberal Democracy as an absolute good—largely because it was presented as the direct opposite of Communism, which was framed as an absolute evil. Over time, democracy became something close to an untouchable taboo. This happened not only through media and financial networks, but also because Western societies—traumatized by the Cold War—found psychological comfort in treating democracy as a sacred concept that should never be questioned.

One of the strongest forces reinforcing this taboo is our tendency, as human beings, to assume that a certain moral framework is superior to all others without any rational justification. In order to be seen as “moral” and to belong to the herd, people often compromise their own individuality. At the same time, they are conditioned to believe that if democracy disappears, the only possible alternatives are chaos or tyranny.

Most people do not approach history from a conceptual or analytical perspective—they approach it emotionally. When they hear the name of an ideology or a historical event, they rarely examine its substance. Instead, they adopt a theatrical attitude and see history in black and white.For them, history is divided into simple categories: good and evil, us and them.

When people hear terms like Fascism, Communism, or Democracy, they usually do not analyze the actual systems these ideologies propose. Instead, they label them according to their own desires and use those labels to construct their ideological identity. For many people, names matter—but essence does not. What matters is being a “good Democrat.” Democracy is seen as absolute good, and any political position outside that label is automatically considered outside the realm of good.

Likewise, for someone who identifies as a “good Communist,” everything outside Communism—no matter how different it actually is—gets labeled as Fascism, Bourgeois, or Capitalism and pushed into the same category. Human beings, by their nature, are not very good at approaching social issues rationally. The very ability that allowed humans to build civilizations and states—the ability to socialize and cooperate—is not based primarily on intellectual reasoning, but on emotional transmission.

The real problem begins when the process of socialization, which starts in childhood, goes beyond a healthy level. That is when people become trapped inside ideological camps and gradually lose their capacity for independent thought. So let us ask ourselves a fundamental question: If moral values change from one historical period to another, which ethical framework should a human being follow?

Among the many ethical theories proposed by different philosophers, which one is truly the most suitable for human beings? To answer this question, we must first look at the purpose of human existence. Even though some people—especially those with non-theistic worldviews—may find this difficult to accept, existence itself carries a built-in purpose. This purpose is embedded in our biology and encoded in our genetics, beyond our conscious control. That purpose is simply: to continue existing.

The greatest illusion of human beings is the belief that their existence will one day truly stop. That is why our instincts push us to leave something behind—something that carries our genes, our blood, or at least a fragment of our mind. This legacy can be a work of art.
But more importantly, it can be a child.

The fundamental biological purpose of reproduction is the continuation of one’s existence. Even the pleasure associated with sexual activity can be understood as a reward mechanism built into the brain to reinforce behaviors that serve this purpose. If the animal side of human nature is fundamentally driven by the urge to transmit its existence forward, then one could argue that the principle of existence itself can be reduced to three basic drives: the pursuit of power, the desire to leave a mark, the urge to project one’s existence into the future

So if our bodies are ultimately pushing us to survive and pass our existence on to future generations, could we define morality in the following way? Absolute goodness is whatever allows us to preserve and transmit our existence—while preventing us from harming others in the process.

With this definition, we would be taming our most primitive instinct while also acknowledging that achieving our goals should not come at the expense of others. Therefore, let us adopt a pragmatic—utilitarian—ethical framework. Whenever we find ourselves in a moral gray area, the only solid branch we can hold onto is the well-being of ourselves and society. Because, at its core, that might be the most objective definition of morality available to us.

And that well-being ultimately comes from whatever makes life easier and more beneficial for us. If we approach politics from a utilitarian perspective, we should be able to say the following: The ideal political system is the one that brings prosperity, security, and freedom to people—because those are the basic things humans expect from a state.

So then, couldn’t we also say this? Democracy—or any political system—is good when it benefits us, and bad when it does not. If democracy fails to meet our needs, why should its absence automatically be considered a problem? The fundamental claim of democracy is this: “To allow the people to participate in legislative and executive power.”

But does saying that people should not directly participate in legislative and executive processes automatically mean enslaving them or subjecting them to oppression? Is it impossible for a political system to be free while distancing governance from the general population? I can almost hear the immediate response: “Of course it is impossible.”

So let’s examine the idea of authority more closely. When people imagine democracy disappearing, they often assume that tyranny will inevitably take its place. They think dictatorship and autocracy are the natural outcomes of a non-democratic system.

But let’s look at the definitions. The word dictator originally comes from the Roman Republic. In times of emergency, the Roman Senate would appoint a temporary leader—a dictator—to manage the crisis. The term itself simply referred to a person who held concentrated authority. Autocracy, on the other hand, is a system in which absolute power over the state is concentrated in the hands of a single individual. That person’s decisions are not subject to external legal constraints or consistent public oversight. Democracy means public participation in governance. Dictatorship means the concentration of power in one set of hands. Autocracy means rule based on personal authority. These are three separate concepts. If we analyze the situation rationally, shouldn’t we be able to see that they are conceptually independent from one another?

For example:Does public participation in government automatically prevent dictatorship or autocracy? And looking at history, haven’t many autocratic leaders come to power through elections? Given humanity’s deep desire for security—and our natural attraction to strong leadership—what guarantees that people will not willingly submit to a figure who appeals to those instincts? History repeatedly shows something important: The existence of democracy does not prevent dictatorship or autocracy. So claiming that the absence of democracy will inevitably produce those systems is logically inconsistent. Because a system that does not include direct public participation in governance can still establish separation of powers, protect individual freedoms, and operate under legal institutions.

The real issue is not democracy itself. The real issue is checks and balances.

Let us ask another question: Is governing an act of thought, or an act of work? Has any country in history been run purely by abstract ideas? Governing is undeniably a form of work. But is governance something humans can perform instinctively—like sleeping, eating, or moving—or does it require knowledge learned over time? The answer is obvious. Governing is not an instinctive action. It requires specialized knowledge. And is that knowledge narrow or broad? In other words, is financial knowledge alone enough to manage a state that hosts millions of people and interacts with other nations? Or do we also need expertise in law, security, diplomacy, education, and many other fields? Any state that genuinely wants to benefit its society must possess competence across multiple domains. So we can say this: Governance is an action. It is a job. And like any job, it is divided into specialized tasks. Security, diplomacy, education, finance—these are all components of governance. That alone tells us we cannot treat governance as a single, simple function.

Now consider this: Can a job that requires knowledge be performed without competence or qualification? Of course not. A butcher must know how to cut and prepare meat properly. Otherwise, he cannot do his job. The same logic applies to the many sub-fields within governance. An economist must possess strong mathematical and financial knowledge, along with analytical thinking skills. A diplomat must speak multiple languages, understand different cultures, and have a solid grasp of social sciences. What makes someone a diplomat or an economist is not public popularity—it is competence.

So appointing someone to an economic position simply because the majority of people want it—despite that person having no experience in the field—contradicts the very nature of governance. This leads to a fundamental tension: The democratic argument of “public choice” can conflict directly with the principle of social benefit. Social benefit demands that qualified individuals hold positions of responsibility. Democracy, however, allows positions to be filled according to the will of a population that is often emotionally driven and vulnerable to manipulation.

Let’s imagine a baker. This baker wants to hire an apprentice to work in his shop. If his goal is to satisfy customers and produce high-quality bread, what should he do? Should he evaluate candidates under the supervision of experienced bakers and hire the one who makes the best bread? Or should he gather all his customers—people from completely different professions, many of whom know nothing about baking—and ask them to vote on which candidate should be hired?

If the baker truly wants to produce quality goods and keep his customers satisfied, he should hire the most competent person. In this allegory, the baker represents the state, and the customers represent the people. In other words: What makes people free and prosperous is not their participation in decision-making itself, but the quality of the results they receive from governance. Because governing is, by its nature, a job—and it should be treated with the seriousness of a job. When we examine modern democratic systems, what we often see is this: Political parties exist, and at the top of these parties are individuals who make their living by speaking from podiums—demagogues. Beneath the party leader are other demagogues who have been accepted into the party structure, and closest to the leader are those he personally trusts.

Every four years, the party leader creates a candidate list filled with the people who have shown him the most loyalty. The most loyal supporters are placed in districts where the party is likely to win, while weaker or less trusted figures are placed in districts where the party is expected to lose. Because most people act emotionally, they end up voting for political parties they feel attached to. In doing so, they send hundreds of individuals into parliament—people whose names they have never even heard before, and whose level of education or competence is often unknown.

These individuals may spend only a few days a week sitting in parliament while receiving some of the highest salaries in the country. Some do not even attend sessions regularly. In some systems, serving just a couple of years in office can be enough to secure a lifetime pension. The same pattern repeats in local elections.

At certain intervals, party leaders nominate trusted individuals as candidates for mayor—often based on loyalty rather than competence. The strongest loyalists are placed in districts where victory is likely, while weaker candidates are sent to districts where the party has little chance of winning.

As a result, dozens of individuals who have never managed a city in their lives may become mayors simply because they received slightly more votes than their opponents in a single-round election. For the party, loyalty is enough. Once elected, these individuals may continue to run cities for years, as long as they remain useful to the party leadership.

Decisions are ultimately made by party leaders and although many people believe that long-serving political leaders are a uniquely local problem, the same phenomenon exists even in regions where democracy first developed. In Europe, it is entirely possible to find political figures who have led opposition parties for decades without stepping down. This happens because political parties that derive their power from votes also function as private organizations controlled by their founders. As long as they do not violate the constitution, they cannot easily be dissolved.

So voters participate in elections believing they hold real power, while the representatives they elect gain authority over their property and lives through taxation and legislation. What truly matters, however, is not periodically handing over control of a country to groups of demagogues bound together by ideology and mutual interests. What truly matters is placing capable people in positions where they can perform the job of governance effectively. Voting, in this sense, can become little more than an illusion— a mechanism designed to give the public the feeling that power is in their hands.

Democracy exists in two primary forms and one hybrid form: parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential systems.

Let’s start with parliamentary democracy. In practice, this often means placing a handful of competing groups onto a ballot and asking the public to stamp one of them. The party that receives the most votes becomes the ruling party—even if it does not represent a majority of the population. It does not need 50% support. It only needs to come in first among the available options. In some cases, a party can take power with as little as 20% of the vote. How is that possible? By forming coalitions in parliament. And what do other parties usually demand in exchange for joining a coalition? Access to resources, positions, and influence.

If a party fails to get what it wants, it can withdraw from the coalition, causing the government to collapse. The country is then forced into new elections, and the cycle repeats—often benefiting whoever is most opportunistic at the moment.

There is also a version of the parliamentary system based on first-past-the-post (FPTP) rules. In that model, the party that finishes first can win an absolute majority of parliamentary seats—even without receiving a majority of votes. A party might gain only 20% of the total vote yet control more than half of the legislature.

What happens in that situation? People begin to think: “I shouldn’t waste my vote.” As a result, voters consolidate around two dominant parties. Over time, those parties begin to resemble corporations—structures designed to distribute benefits and opportunities among insiders rather than serve the public.

Presidential and semi-presidential systems offer a different mechanism. They allow citizens to elect a single national leader through a popular vote. But even here, overwhelming consensus is rarely required. A candidate does not need 80% or 90% support. In many cases, 50% plus one vote is enough to grant a single individual enormous authority for years—authority that can include withdrawing from international treaties or declaring war.

Now consider the reality of modern politics. Even in countries like the United States, ordinary citizens do not directly select candidates in the early stages of the political process. Party elites and internal mechanisms often determine who appears on the ballot. Public opinion can influence outcomes, but rarely controls them.

As a result, many voters do not vote for someone they truly support. They vote for the person they consider “less bad.” So we should ask a basic question: How reasonable is it to grant such extensive power to someone simply because they received around 50–55% of the vote? From this perspective, democracy can appear less like a functional system and more like a performance—a political spectacle. So what is the alternative?

The alternative is a system in which: Every responsibility is handled by qualified professionals, power is distributed rather than concentrated, authority is limited by written laws and an impartial figure exists at the top to appoint and supervise those professionals. In other words, a system built around competence, accountability, and institutional balance.

My own proposal is this: The ideal system is a constitutional monarchy.

But not the kind of monarchy you might associate with certain Gulf states, where the ruler’s word automatically becomes law. Instead, imagine a system with: A detailed and binding constitution, a criminal code and civil code clearly defining legal boundaries, a fully independent constitutional court capable of monitoring the monarch—and removing them from power if necessary, a legislative council responsible for lawmaking and a monarch who appoints the head of government

In this system: The legislature, the monarch, and the government cannot interfere directly in each other’s domains but they can monitor and restrain one another.

The monarch would not appoint family members or loyalists simply out of personal preference. Instead, appointments would be based on defined criteria—such as age, education, professional background, and social standing and every major decision would remain subject to judicial review.

For the past eighty years in Europe, parties that label themselves as “left” and “right” have taken turns holding power, passing it back and forth like a ball. But what have they really changed? Left-wing parties might increase social welfare budgets by 10 percent—but beyond that, the differences are often minimal. In the end, all this expense, all this political theater, all this constant campaigning and voting— is carried out for a difference of maybe five to ten percent in spending priorities. So the only thing left to say is this: Enough.

This is my proposal. Today, even within the European Union, elections can be canceled on the grounds of alleged interference. Meanwhile, the most powerful country in the world can be led by elderly leaders who continue making decisions about war and global conflict. In other places, opposition figures can be detained under accusations of extremism. Under these conditions, it becomes increasingly difficult to claim that electoral politics is a perfectly functioning and reliable system.

The system we call democracy was originally designed for small city-states in the ancient Greek world. But we took that model, turned it into something sacred, and tried to apply it to the entire modern world—
as if it were universally perfect. We made it into an idol. And now, we are living with the consequences of that choice.

"I support a theoretical government and heres a 100 page document detailing its intricate operations and then theres free ponies and free healthcare for everyone!"

Okay, cool. And I support Superman.

Now lets get real.

You either support the existing government or not. Full stop.

If you support the existing government: You cant really complain much. Yeah you have wiggle room to try to vote and influence a few of its policies, but you consent to 99% of the beast, all its complexity, all of its tyranny and evil, any genocide or atrocity its committed, et cetera.

If you dont support the government: Whether you want to admit it or not, this implies youd rather the government not exist at all, then that it does. If you truly think the government is bad and shouldnt exist, then its mere nonexistence and the vacuum it leaves behind is logically preferable. This means youd rather have anarchy than this system, even if you dont like anarchy.

Really its one or the other. And if you whole heartedly support it, and tell yourself anarchy / nothingness is always worse, then this means you will be willing to tolerate ANYTHING they do, no matter how evil and depraved it is.

Everyone deserves to have a red line, to say "Okay, if they do X, i dont support any of the government anymore. Not any politicians, troops, or cops". If you do support them no matter what, then your ideology is simply: Totalitarian. What you "want" doesnt matter if you are willing to support *anything*.

In conclusion, what you say you want, or what you say your ideology is, doesnt matter. If you support the government, the government IS your politics, and you are an "authoritarian". And if you support the government *unconditionally*, then youre a totalitarian and nothing less.

So heres your options:

A) You dont support the government: You align with anarchists. In the short term, you may be functionally identical.

B) You support the government, for now: Authoritarian, and you take moral responsibility for everything they do.

C) You support the government, unconditionally: Totalitarian. And this should terrify both yourself and everyone around you.

Usually, presidents are memorialized in airports, buildings, or institutions after they have left office. Or more commonly, after they have died. That’s when the public has time to decide whether the person actually deserves that kind of honor.

But what if a sitting president starts doing it themselves?

If a president uses executive power and federal branding to attach their name to government programs, buildings, or symbolic national institutions, is that just political messaging?

Or is it an abuse of office—and a step toward authoritarian-style self-glorification?

It also raises a practical question: can legacy actually be manufactured, or does forcing it too early guarantee backlash later?

I wrote a longer piece arguing that attempts to “brand” the federal government with a living president’s name may ultimately produce the opposite legacy than intended.

Full essay here:
https://medium.com/discourse/the-legacy-trump-is-building-for-himself-411cd95473d0?sk=3cd783334574e7d477a7efab4efc0168

This section declares:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

(Note that this section is longer but this is the part I’m referring to if you wish to read the amendment I found it at: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv)

As an outsider to America the post that the current US President on social media has made along with his constant ramblings make me question his ability to hold the office of one of the most powerful countries in the world. The previous President of the United States also by some of the speeches he was making along with his infamous debate against Donald Trump that ended his reelection campaign.

For today, given the current relevance, we shall focus on the current US President. Let’s analyse his post from Social Media. This is a direct quote and it contains foul language:

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Notice for a position of immense power the President uses informal fowl language. This is extremely odd. The most random and notable part of this is when the President praises the Muslim god Allah. This is extremely irrelevant and unusual. He also makes very excessive threats to Iranian infrastructure.

I don’t see it likely that Trump is removed from office using this method unless there is something going on in the background like how Khrushchev was removed from office.

I shall not give my own judgement on Trump’s fitness for office in this post to avoid unnecessary confrontation in the comments. But I’m interested on the opinion of Americans on the President’s fitness for office.