Parents pick the winners and losers, and the best schools rise to the top, while failing schools are filtered out. Parents measure quality by whatever metrics they find to be the most useful and reliable, just like with any other industry.

Competition forces education firms to constantly outperform each other in a race to maximize utility, meaning a race in providing the most useful and valuable education, at the least cost to parents. And new innovations, efficiencies, and ways of operating and providing education are discovered along the way that likely wouldn't have been discovered with a nationalized government-run school system.

Pair this with a government subsidy for lower-income families, so they can also afford to send their kids to great schools, and what is the issue?

I’ve been thinking recently about the topic of our party systems, especially after recent elections in states like Florida. Why do we even have the Two-Party System? George Washington himself warned us a country divided by political parties would never stand. I believe we should ditch the Two-Party System. It’s caused politicians to worry about representing their party, race, or group rather than the people. It’s caused division. In places like the House of Representatives, both parties only care about filling seats in order to gain control and power, to further push the power of their party. It tears people apart. Like the assassination on Charlie Kirk. Because someone was apart of another party and had different values, he was killed. Even in other places like Russia, when the Tsar was still in place, the battle between socialists and communists tore the country apart. Abolish the parties. Represent the People, not your party. I may not be super informed on politics, but this is what I believe.

The right wants women to forcibly repopulate the earth with only CDC approved genetics and the left wants you in prison for saying the r word and both want everything on camera

A lot of people who call themselves conservatives are actually reactionaries, not Burkean conservatives

This may be particularly unpopular among the modern American and Latin American right, but I think the word “conservative” has become so broad that it often describes completely different political traditions.

One of the foundational thinkers of modern political conservatism is Edmund Burke. Burkean conservatism is fundamentally concerned with institutions, historical continuity, prudence and gradual reform. It is skeptical of attempts to radically reconstruct society because institutions contain accumulated historical experience.

That is not the same thing as believing that society has morally deteriorated and therefore needs to be returned to some idealized previous social order.

The latter is much closer to reactionary politics.

This distinction matters because today “conservative” is frequently used to describe a package containing religious traditionalism, opposition to progressive social change, economic liberalism, nationalism and support for a particular political movement.

But none of those things necessarily implies the others.

A political conservative can support a welfare state.

An economic liberal can be socially progressive.

A nationalist can support extensive state intervention and industrial policy.

A religious traditionalist can oppose free-market liberalism.

And someone who wants to reverse social changes in order to restore a supposedly superior past can be reactionary without being particularly conservative in the Burkean institutional sense.

The same problem exists when people talk about “the right” as though it were a single ideology.

Center-right liberals, institutional conservatives, national conservatives, libertarians, populist radicals, reactionaries and anarcho-capitalists can all be placed somewhere on the political right while disagreeing profoundly about economics, institutions, religion, nationalism and the role of the state.

Latin America provides an especially interesting example because religious traditionalism has become deeply intertwined with political identity. Brazil historically had Catholic traditionalist and reactionary movements, while Pentecostal and later Neo-Pentecostal movements developed through different religious histories and eventually became increasingly politically influential.

These traditions can now cooperate on moral and electoral issues, but that does not mean they all originated from the same political philosophy.

I therefore think we should stop automatically translating:

religious + traditional values + right-wing = conservative.

Conservatism, religious traditionalism and reaction are overlapping concepts, but they are not synonyms.

And wanting to preserve institutions while allowing gradual reform is fundamentally different from wanting to restore an idealized social order from the past.

The first can reasonably be called conservatism.

The second has another perfectly useful political name: reactionary politics.

They are a blatant way for politicians to free people who support them or are related to them (as shown by both Donald Trump pardoning Jan.6th rioters and Biden pardoning his son). some people argue “But sometimes the justice system gets it wrong and is too harsh!” okay, so? that’s a failure of the justice system and shows that the justice system should be reformed, not that a single person should be able to decide to just overturn verdicts. also, appeals to exist for a reason. the other argument I sometimes hear is “well the president should have some privileges“ well not really. the president should serve the people. also, even if he gets presidential privileges, those privileges should not include a out of jail for free card so the president can pardon his allies.

I am from a south asian country. I feel like Right wing politics focuses too much on religion, traditional values and nationalism. And left wing politics focuses too much on things that do not matter to average joes.

A person can be religious, have open mind towards beliefs of others and values personal freedom. An atheist can be liberal in every way but doesn’t respect national traditional values and such. So its not all black and white with average people. Every individual is different. But right wing ideology and left wing ideology both, in their own way, tries to segregate people, wheras a person can be something in between.

1. A  work program for teens and young adults up to the age of 20 where as long as they are in the program, what they make does not affect their parents' benefits to help them get off government assistance.
2. They are required to put 80% of what they earn in a locked savings account they get access to when they turn 20.
3.  The remaining 20% could be a good tool to teach them how to budget and manage money. If the bank account has at least a 5% interest rate, then by the time they turn 20 they should have enough to move out on their own and not need welfare.
4. They would not need to sign up for government assistance, which in the long term, can save the government a lot of money that can be spent elsewhere.

 This proposal would make both the left and right side of the political spectrum happy.

•  It would make the left happy because they would get the help they want for young adults and teens who feel trapped in the system and the plan also creates generational wealth.
• It appeases the right because it also gives them discipline from working and responsibility from managing their money and is not just a government handout.

It would stump politicians because this is an issue from which no politician can afford to look the other way. Anyone who votes against this would be actively voting to keep families trapped on welfare. If a conservative votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they always talk about work ethic, personal responsibility and ending dependency on government assistance. If a liberal votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they claim to want to help disadvantaged youth and end poverty cycles.

Overall, I believe this policy would benefit the people by giving this next generation and future generations a way to become independent from government assistance. It would also be saving money for the state and giving them more resources to be used elsewhere.

When socialists vote for third party candidates they endlessly get condemned for voting for a 3rd party candidate

But when socialists run under the banner of the Democratic Party they are simultaneously condemned for running under the Democratic Party label instead of creating their own political party

A lot of the establishment democrats can’t make up their minds about which outcome they prefer socialists running as democrats or socialists creating their own independent political party

1. Nationalism (Ban corporate lobbying, abolish dual citizenship, deport all foreign nationals)
2. Right-Libertarianism (Anti-crony free market, decriminalized drugs, liberty in privacy, regulated prostitution, pro-private property)
3. Social Conservatism (Pro-life, anti-Marxism, nuclear family values, capital punishment)
4. Populism (Direct democracy and yeoman principles)
5. Radicalism (Destruction of the status-quo is necessary, militia jurisdictions)

I can’t help but notice a lot of DSA aligned candidates aren’t actually proposing a restructured economic system, just kinda extending social welfare and offering more public programs.

Being they get so much flack for being “socialists” do you think they perhaps should change their name and clarify this distinction?

I'm starting to think that democracy is a highly ineffective system and authoritarianism easily abused by whomever cares more about being an individual power rather than doing the best for their country.

I see democracy as something that only works when people are made to make decisions after spending countless hours diving into analyzing and comparing the competency of each candidate, you can not expect that from a pool of 100 million random people. If a good government is created by solving an extremely complicated problem, why would you ask millions of people who have no reason to spend any of the time necessary to understand it to choose?

A quasi-authoritarian rule under an idealized competent benevolent party solves many of it's problems but can not be reliably sustained over multiple generations because for every lee kuan yew there will be 5 of donald trump.

I see a divided government as inefficient and impossible to rely on for any sort of long-term vision. If you have to average out every decision to find the point of most total satisfaction for the vote stakeholder, no matter how objectively harmful or genuinely necessary their needs might be for what matters outside of them as an individual / for the most benefit for your nation, you might as well use the effect a decision has on the immediate share price of a company as a legitimate source of truth for the long term growth of that company.

When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure. The democratic process rewards those who maximize public opinion rather than acting as a system to judge competence without bias; This can be seen through things such as arbitrarily dividing political opposition into "them" and "us" being legitimate strategies for attaining office.

This need to maintain non-analytical, non-rational, averaged public opinion serves to poison the decision making of leaders into making matching non-rational decisions, you stop being rewarded for thinking about what the country needs and start thinking in terms of what people would vote for, what would keep your approval ratings up, what is going to be least hated by the aggregate sum.

(Note: by Non rational I do not mean irrational. I mean not up to par with the personal investment that an objective researched analysis of what should be done or who should be elected would require if the outcome is to be free of these major side effects.)

Thus I see a single competent benevolent party that comes to be without the influence or selection of these incentives to maintain public opinion as a government as more likely to be able to judge and implement the policy best for the prosperity of a collective than a competitive system like you'd see in the US, precisely because it doesn't have an incentive to prioritize action by what voters would vote for instead of what should be done outside of the leader's personal interests.

(Note: I am not saying that a competent benevolent party is easy to come by, I actually think the opposite. The means to getting to this state consistently is it's own, likely unsolvable problem; And if that is so, then democracy likely minimizes the most risk.)

Am I the only one who sees the division that is created on purpose to keep us away from what's truly happening? Whoever is creating this division, that's the group everyone should be mad at, but they created this division to keep us at Bay. Divide and conquer.

It's been done with the republican and democratic parties. Everything is turned into a black and white issue even though most Americans find gray with most issues. If they didn't divide us with these issues, it would be hard for them to control us. This makes it easier for them to siphon money to wherever they see fit. The divide is on purpose, and the American people are falling into this trap. It's further exasperated by the xmedia that is also pumped with money from those trying to divide us. What would happen if we took this division away?

I see the same thing with religious groups. I feel like all religions come from a place of peace and have more in common than not, but division is purposely created to generate hate. The people who are creating this division are not from a good peaceful heart. They are using these religions as militia to foster their own agenda. What would happen if all religions stopped this divide? How would money be generated and moved around so strategically?

We all need to wake up and not be so easily manipulated and polarized. We have to close this divide!

What do you think?

The narrative is that businesses are greedy and don't care about anything but money so the government must regulate industry to insure consumer safety. Then the government hires people from those industries to regulate those industries, it's called the revolving door. The justification is that nobody knows the "ins and outs" or industry better than people from those industries. Wait, what? The very people who can't be trusted will be regulating the people who can't be trusted?

Those inside industry regulators then insure that their former colleagues in industry don't suffer serious consequences. They might throw a mild sanction or two at them when politically expedient to keep up appearances but it's a drop in the bucket compared to their revenues. If a serious incident occurs due to regulatory maleficence, their regulatory friends will say it wasn't the company's fault but rather the regulations were insufficient and need to be reviewed and updated and they'll praise the perpetrators for their diligence and professionalism in upholding the highest standards. After a few years of regulating, those same people will return to industry for a seven figure salary because now they know all the right people to lobby in regulatory positions. They all play golf together, drink together and attend all the same fund raisers.

The regulators are middlemen in positions of tremendous power and influence and they're for sale as are all politicians. The consumer believes they are better off, safer thanks to regulation but they are actually worse off because businesses can get away with almost anything and their regulatory cronies have their back. Imagine being at the top of the social hierarchy, no one to govern the governors, and knowing you can get away with almost anything to increase profits and stock prices.

Government regulation ends up being justification for wrongdoing, not a safeguard against it.

The Trump administration is blatantly the most corrupt in our history. They are all getting rich and living well off the taxpayers.

When it come to corruption, it's not enough to say "both sides do it." Two wrongs don't make a right. Republican voters see Trump's corruption and say nothing. And that's what all Americans need to recognize; millions of Republican voters are fine with Trump and his people stealing from us and remain silent.

The silence of the lambs.

Context & Origin

Growing up in Sweden and watching the gradual erosion of our social democratic welfare state, I’ve reflected deeply on why that model struggled against neoliberal pressures. While I believe the mid-20th-century Swedish model is the closest baseline to my ideals, it left the ultimate lever of power capital ownership largely intact. This allowed wealth to re-concentrate and eventually roll back public gains. To prevent that degradation, I believe we need a system that balances a strong welfare state with a regulated, worker-owned market.

Public Needs in Public Hands

A society must guarantee the foundational conditions of a dignified life. The state should act as a guardian, directly providing universal healthcare, housing, education, utilities, infrastructure, and food security. These are non-negotiable needs that no one should have to compete for. Therefore, the state must be the primary controller of housing development and the sole controller of essential infrastructure, water, power, and care.

Personal Choices in Democratic Markets

Beyond essential needs, consumer goods should be allocated through a regulated market economy to avoid the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of total state control. However, traditional authoritarian corporate hierarchy must be abolished. Instead, I propose a dynamic democratization of the workplace: as a company scales in size, capital, and market influence, a progressively larger percentage of board seats and capital shares must automatically transition into the hands of the workers. The larger the company size, the larger the share of power and profit to the workers.

The Capital Asymptote and Land Stewardship

To prevent the creation of monopolies and extreme societal divides, wealth accumulation must be capped via an endlessly progressive tax scale on owned capital, property, and inheritance. Perpetual capital hoarding must be made impossible. Furthermore, land ownership must be treated differently from ordinary goods, it should be heavily regulated and capped as holdings grow, recognizing land as a finite resource. Preventing the creation of a renting class.

Democratic Pluralism

A multi-party system with competitive elections is essential to keep state power transparent and checked. I reject both authoritarian government and corporate authoritarianism. No government should control every aspect of your life, and no corporation should become powerful enough to make your freedom dependent on it.

The Synthesis

My political philosophy comes from a simple premise: public needs in public hands, personal choices in democratic markets, and democracy as the limit on capital.

By combining a robust welfare state that guarantees human needs, a regulated market for consumer goods, and a dynamically democratized workplace where corporate power scales with the workers, we can prevent wealth re-concentration. This approach preserves individual liberty and market flexibility while ensuring that economic power constantly circulates back to the public, keeping the ideals of democratic egalitarianism alive without a centralized command economy.

I believe state control of the entire economy is unrealistic and prone to bureaucracy. Instead, I favor a framework built on a simple premise: public needs in public hands, personal choices in democratic markets, and democracy as the limit on capital.

Here is how I outline my personal political beliefs:

• Decommodified Public Needs: The state acts as a guardian, directly providing universal healthcare, housing, education, utilities, infrastructure, and food security through a strong welfare state.
• Democratized Market Economy: Non-essential consumer goods are allocated through a regulated market economy. However, enterprise hierarchy is abolished, workers automatically receive equity shares and proportional board representation.
• Capital Asymptote: Wealth accumulation is capped via an endlessly progressive tax scale on owned capital and land, making perpetual capital hoarding structurally impossible.
• Democratic Pluralism: A multi-party system with competitive elections keeps state power transparent and checked.

Non intellectuals are the majority now. Far too easy to manipulate people who feel they have no power and ONLY just need to send a vote to presented options every election.

Corporations can buy out the system that produces the options. Corporations own the media. 90%+ of population are informed by controlled news and algorithms made to farm engagement 🤷

The two party system has been monopolized and can longer be trusted.

So my question is have we reached the point of getting rid of it? Trump incited a rally because democracy didn’t go his way one time.

I think it’s gone close enough when citizens begin to attack their country’s decision.

Rallys/protests got to stop being about specific problems and should now be fighting to put someone who actually wants to work on the problems while spreading the awareness in those positions of government.