Forums / Discussion / General

Me rn

> you can't trust the masses to do what is right without force

I'm at a loss for words.

This is how it starts. This is how it ALWAYS STARTS.

Historic revisionism? How is a refusal to ingrain effective race-essentialism into a school curriculum historic revisionism? Because it's trying to stay away from how it once actually was? Do you even know what CRT teaches? Or what it's implications are? Do you EVER know what you are talking about?

In short Critical Race Theory come from Critical Theory which is from the Marxist school of thought which analyses all things through power differentials between groups. Critical Race Theory is this school of thought applied to Race, with it's implications being that ANY DISPARITIES BETWEEN RACES ARE THE RESULT OF RACISM and, because the primary groups involved in this analysis is White and Non-white, WHITE PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSORS AND NON-WHITE PEOPLE ARE THE OPPRESSED.

Imagine, just for one moment, telling a young black man that he ought to hate his young white friend because he belongs to the oppressive group; not because of anything he did but because of historical circumstances and the immutable characteristic of his birth.

Imagine telling that same young white man that he ought to feel ashamed because he belongs to the oppressive group; not because of anything he did but because of historical circumstances and the immutable characteristic of his birth.

This is the bullshit that is being taught and THIS IS WHAT IS BEING FOUGHT AGAINST.

Not the fact that the U.S. was a player in the slave trade; not the fact that the U.S. basically broke every treaty it made with the native populous; not the fact that the U.S. basically waged a genocidal WAR on those same Natives; not the fact that the U.S. has fucked up so many countless times in history you could fill an encyclopedia; BUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD TO FEEL HATE AND SHAME FOR IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS

This fucking country is quickly devolving back into the racial animosity it once had because we've started making RACE a big fucking deal again and the primary focus of interactions between people. MLK died for fucking NOTHING it seems and people like you piss on his grave.

Exactly.

"MLK died for fucking NOTHING it seems and people like you piss on his grave."

"because the primary groups involved in this analysis is White and Non-white"
Which evolved into white-cis-normative vs everyone else.
This is a framework that is utterly unsustainable for any society, is primarily pushed by young middle class white people, which ignores historic racial differences and animosity. It also highlights a growing fracturing of the coalition as time goes on as certain realities become manifest. I.e., the hostile race relations between non-white groups. The extreme difficulties of even defining these groups. The incompatibility of relying on 19th century historic reality to the demographic reality of 21st century.

You're not even trying. Tell me where I am wrong or sod off

CrItIcAl ThEoRy Is An ImAgInArY cOnCePt

You're not a dumb-ass so stop acting like one

Slippery-slope is only a fallacy when the successions are not causally connected; but this is not even relevant: This isn't a slope it's a fucking cliff dude. Demanding coercion "to do what is right" is so open ended and so ambiguous that when the ice-pick finds it's way into your head it doesn't matter what you think is right for the masses; it's what the most cruel and devious thinks.

"you can't trust the masses to do what is right without force"
Same energy:

Previous comment not precious *

Uncertainty in forecasts of long-run economic growth.

Shit looking pretty tough not gonna lie

Failure to know what you are arguing about but arguing about it anyway is not reasonable. But humans are only sometimes reasonable creatures so it is forgivable.

Also you can literally edit your comment, so being cute and leaving in "precious" instead of "previous" and then making a second post about how it was a mistake makes you look petty.

Its funny you say that about democracy because it's true. Athens was not a fun place.
The U.S., however, is not a democracy for the very fear of tyranny of the majority. Supreme leaders/heads of state are not directly chosen by the populous nor are those leaders/heads of state given carte blanche (though executive orders effectively give a president carte blanche until a court rules on the EO; but even then since the executive is also the enforcer of laws they can choose to ignore a court order. This is an aside but it's one reason I think the SCOTUS might need a small enforcement division but the ramifications of such a body are a different discussion). It is a Constitutional Representative Republic in which leaders are elected, directly on the small scale but by district on the large, to lead within the confines of constitutional law (though, see my previous thought).

> It is not ambiguous at all, what is right and wrong is clear and objective

As supreme leader I hereby decree that it is right and morally good to kick puppies. Oh you disagree? A-haha… against the wall please.

I'm not a moral relativist but I know, with confidence, that what is right and wrong is only clear and objective in the most extreme fringes of cases (I killed that man because I like the thrill of killing). Everything else is highly contextual (I killed that man because he was approaching me with what looked like a knife). This is why courts exist when right and wrong is interpreted through law. This is why a plethora of religious/secular doctrines exist when right and wrong is interpreted though the spiritual/metaphysical.

Ah yes, the greater good. There has been no greater cause of misery, no force so influential, no power so adept at justifying atrocities, then that of the greater good.

Should we talk about the greater good of 1930s-1945 Germany? Or of 1917-1993 Soviet Union? Maybe of 1975-1978 Cambodia? Or, yes the GREATER GOOD of 1994 Rwanda; specifically between the months of April and July!
All very prime examples of the joys that the pursuit of the greater good brings.

Things are only going to get worse before they get better but I choose to be an optimist and believe they will, in fact, get better; and you don't even need a war for those changes to occur: post WWII Japan and Germany are both examples of crushed economies that not only recovered but flourished. Once supply chains are re-normalized I think things will start to turn around (though, I am not an economist so grains of salt and all that).

Though this does point out a serious Achilles-heel in the global economic model which is these supply-chains in the first place. They are useful and necessary for resources/commodities that are geographically locked but for everything else this disruption should be an eye-opener for why producing things locally is important.

Also, not shipping things around the planet to various countries for each step in a production chain can help reduce green-house emissions. Seriously, some of these chains are insane. Like fruit being picked in Mexico, being shipped to China for processing, then being shipped to Thailand for packaging, then being shipped to the U.S. for consumption. All because it is cheaper to do all that then just have the farms, processing and packaging plants operating in the U.S (for various reasons: lack of subsidies, taxes, wages, regulations, etc. I think it is paramount that the U.S. find a way to balance these things. I don't want chemical plant dumping waste in rivers but I don't want them to have such high overhead that they god "fuck it, we can just dump in the Xiang river so lets move operations to Hunan")

Huh… There actually appears to be a time limit for edits. Okay, I was wrong about what I said about literal edits and pettiness. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

First and foremost I want to apologize for being crass. I have grown so overwhelmingly frustrated with the current political climate and what I perceive as nonsense that it is driving me up the wall.

But no, I am not weaponizing CRT; those who advocate for CRT weaponize CRT. I am advocating against its adoption because I find it to lack merit and distract from genuine problems and the genuine solutions to those problems (such as the very real wealth disparity between minority neighborhoods and non-minority neighborhoods; the proliferation of crime in mostly minority neighborhoods and how it suppresses neighborhood development and the development of the peoples that live there; etc)

The article is an interesting read and I appreciate your linking of it.

However, I've stated exactly what CRT is: it is CT applied to racial dynamics. Anyone who says otherwise is uninformed or is improperly using the terminology.

And CT, being a Marxists philosophy, is the breakdown and analysis of groups/things through power differentials (group A has more abstract power than group B, ergo group A is the oppressive group and group B is the oppressed group. Oppression is tyranny, so it is necessary now to breakdown how group A holds more abstract power than group B so that this power differential may be rectified).

What CT fails to, or seems to fail to given the actions of its adherents, is that differentials in "power" can be innate and therefore cannot be rectified without the very tyranny/discrimination it is aimed at rectifying!

Take, for example, what I will call Critical Basketball Theory. We can observe the following: given the rules of the game and the structure of the field of play, tall people hold advantage over short people. This is a power differential which means tall people are the oppressors in Basketball and short people are the oppressed. How do we rectify this? How do we "emancipate" the short people from the tyranny of the tall? We can't change the field of play as no matter what we do (without completely breaking what we call basketball), tall people will always have an advantage. We can, perhaps, make quotas for short people on teams; but that doesn't fix the inherent inequality- tall players will still have an advantage. Perhaps we can issue a maximum height? No, because those who are the tallest within the new framework still hold an advantage. Maybe all players can be issued with some kind of equipment which equalizes their height? (Such as those kangaroo shoes/leggings; this would actually be really cool to see); but alas! Even still those that are naturally taller will have an advantage based purely on their musculature. In fact, I believe this difference in musculature to be the hidden source of our tyranny! So how do we rectify the fact that some people- generally those who are tall- have more developed leg muscles than those who are short?

Now allow me to clarify what is an overwhelmingly large fault in the pushback of CRT "being taught in classrooms"; it is, in fact, not being taught in classrooms.
As mentioned in the article, the discipline itself is a university level field. However, the theory itself is not what is being taught but the praxis is being used to shape curriculum; and not just in places where one might actually form a compelling argument to its presence (like in a history course, though a detailed analysis and breakdown of the Trail of Tears [it is a good example of why I don't idolize U.S. history] through the lens of oppressive colonizers vs. oppressed natives is unnecessary to explain that 1] It happened, 2] It was bad [breaking treaties and the inhumane treatment of other humans is wrong], and 3] It's effects are still present to this day [had it not occurred, American Indians would still be found in the various places they had been displaced from]) but in hard sciences like physics and mathematics

With that said there are genuinely awful people glomming onto the anti-CRT train to try to push their own awful agenda; however I have found that many a modern and more sophisticated racists genuinely support CRT because it suits their purpose of forcing racial division (they are just unhappy with the "white people = bad" aspect, they prefer to spin it off as "hey look at all the accomplishments of white people; don't you think white people = good?")

Finally, I think we can agree the U.S. public education system is subpar, and far too often it is only been made worse (No Child Left Behind from the Bush administration being an example of making a bad situation worse). However, while excising CRT praxis from public education is not de-facto aimed at making the U.S. PSS better, it is certainly a step to prevent it from being made even worse.

At risk of being flagged for spamming, an addendum to my previous post is that CT in general also abandons the concept of genuine meritocracy (most qualified person for a position takes that position) in the pursuit of equity which is, just in general, detrimental to societies as Meritocracy ensures those who have the experience to act in a effective manner are put in those positions where that experience can have substantial impact on the actions taken in those positions (e.g. the most tactically experienced CO is put in command of a platoon as opposed to the- say- chubbiest, to shrink the slender/chubby CO gap).

Indeed if you want to see what a lack of meritocracy looks like just look at the CCPs Politburo, or the average American politician.

Of course, in terms of the U.S, how to effectively establish a means to quantify merit is difficult and possibly even unwanted as it would require barring the exercise of peoples right to engage in politics as they see fit.

I mean, they've effectively been arguing, unironically, that "meritocracy" is a white-colonialist idea. @Xtal you're also correct to point out that the theory itself is not being taught – which is the argument being made by the progressives is, but the praxis of CT is being increasingly used in classrooms at younger and younger ages which is the argument being made by conservative parents. This is the massive disconnect that the Democratic establishment, and it's consequent media arm, simply does not grasp, or doesn't want to grasp.

Many Democrats, and left-leaning people who are taking a sober view of the recent most elections in the last few days – and some even before in 2020 when the Democrats barely won – are realizing that there is a massive disconnect between the progressives and the establishment in the Democratic party, and the people.

For example AOC is out there saying that Terry McAuliffe wasn't progressive enough and that is why he lost. Really? That kind of viewpoint is applicable if you think there was a small turnout of Democrats, i.e. they weren't passionate enough to vote on the issues.

But that doesn't seem to be the case. Not a single county in Virginia has turned more Democrat since 2020. Are the Democrats really going to turn average families against them? Are they really going to side with the premise that parents shouldn't have a say on what's being taught to their kids – after a year of their kids not even going to school?

Was gonna stop posting for a while but screw it after this:

I hate saying this but as awful as the Soviet Union was it was technically more meritocratic in many ways (even if what you needed to climb the Soviet Union hierarchy was often being treacherous, deceptive and what not) than say a monarchy so the world having to be meritocratic in many areas is not necesarily a rightwing idea.

I aint defending the Soviet Union either mind you I am glad they are gone and depending on the context I might pick living in the monarchy than living in the Soviet Union because there may be more food in the monarchy. What I am saying is that you cant fully accuse the left of being anti-meritocracy when they have some form of meritocratic hierarchy (if only out of necessity) even when they dont want to its just different from say a rightwing hierarchy.

Hell Nazis and white supremasists seem against the idea of meritocracy if it goes against the interests of the white. While the left can be all about all races allowed to participate in the job market and what not.

Most leftist communities have historically had some sort of hierarchy somewhere that you need to "earn" your place in so they arent fully going against meritocracy even when said leftist communities wanted otherwise in fact.

Hell this meritocratic hierarchies you still get in the left could be used as criticism for the left even if I personally find some of it unavoidable, but my point definetly stands I think.

Edit: I am not saying you are saying this but I am just saying, technically the left is usually to so me extent meritocratic…if by accident

If it was I that came off as asserting that left-wing politics eschew meritocracy and right-wing politics revere it, please be assured that I don't believe that is the case; indeed I don't think meritocracy is a political entity at all. I was specifically pointing out that adherents to CRT (though I think this would apply to CT and all subclasses there of) eschew meritocracy in favor of equity because, to them, disparities are the greatest sin of all and must be stamped out by any means necessary, even if that means sacrificing positions to people who are under-qualified but check the appropriate boxes.

When disparities from prejudice claim lives on a consistent basis since generations, then there's a real problem we need to address, by hook or by crook. Why do you fear being taught about Tulsa?

Please enlighten me how the dissection and analysis of race relations exclusively through power disparities has accomplished solving or even begun to solve any of these problems.
Please enlighten me as to how sowing racial division is beneficial.
Please enlighten me as to how the ends justify the means.

> Why do you fear being taught about Tulsa?

You are in no position to judge what I do and do not fear nor will you ever be in that position. You have no power here pissant.

Now tell me, why are you so insistent on kicking puppies bigguy?

I have to disagree, @NO!!. Climbing up the political hierarchy in the USSR had nothing to do with merit. Like, AT ALL, and you can point to the gross inefficiencies, corruption, indifference and what not that led to constant shortages (which I have personal ample stories of), and even more disasters like the Chernobyl incident. Climbing the political hierarchy of the Soviet system was entirely based on a constant engagement in some of the most cut-throat politicking, i.e., aligning with the right people, appointing your loyal allies to positions of power, who you knew and who knew you, and often your birth, influencing others, brutally ridding of enemies, many of whom were your allies. (Brezhnev replaced Kruschev through a coup, which was started by Alexander Shelepin, who was originally an ally of Kruschev, whom Kruschev appointed as head of KGB, but turned on him).
The few true believers, and bureaucrats that wanted to actually help the system were almost always not promoted because they would always be viewed with hostilities, and suspicion. And why not? When you climb the ranks by the support and love by the people you are swiftly put down by your direct superiors lest you replace them. There were constant power struggles.

And that system hasn't particularly changed. Analyze Putin here.
In Leningrad (St. Petersburg) State University when he studied law he was a student, and friend of Anatoly Sobchak, who co-authored the later Russian Constitution and was the first democratically elected mayor of St. Petersburg. Putin was very influential in Anatoly's career in St. Petersburg, and later, Anatoly was very influential in Putin's career in Moscow.

When Putin was younger, he studied German, which he speaks fluently. When he joined the KGB he was assigned, effectively, to be an agent in Dresden, East Germany. There is a shit ton of controversial shit here, not to mention him being actively involved with the Stasi, incidentally, around the time that they tried to recruit Angela Merkel in East Germany for. (She claims she turned down the invitation). Anyway, When the walls started coming down on the USSR, Putin was saving files from being burned by the Stasi and KGB, sending much of it to Moscow for archiving. (Names, people involved, etc)

Anyway after the KGB dissolved, he returned to St. Petersburg and was recruited as an advisor to the now mayor, Anatoly Sobchak. He was corrupt from the literal beginning, with numerous investigations surrounding his dealings with foreign aid. By the mid 90s, Sobchak lost his re-election, which Putin ran as a campaign and left St. P, to Moscow, where he was given a political position to … reclaim "soviet" property back to Russia. He became close to Yeltsin, and Yeltsin gave him the role in 1998 to be the head of the FSB (the KGB's new name), things moved rapidly then. The Russians started the second Chechnyan War which Putin supported. By 1999 Yeltsin made it clear he wanted Putin to be his successor.

On December 31st, 1999, Yeltsin, without any warning, and very suddenly, resigned, making Putin effectively the President of the Russian Federation. The very first thing he did, literally on the same day was signed the Presidential Decree: "On guarantees for the former president of the Russian Federation and the members of his family". This document effectively protected Yeltsin and his family from any, and all corruption charges, which incidentally, also later involved Putin himself. Within 3 months elections were held, but by that point Putin consolidated his power and won with a 53% majority, starting what is, effectively a new Russian Monarchy.

All of it. Cut-and-throat politics, corruption, and who you know. The only merit Putin had was knowing German, and being in the right place, at the right time (the fall of the Berlin wall, with absolute access to all the KGB and Stasi files at hand).

That is fair actually, the USSR was a bad example as the system got so corrupt and authoritarian it rewarded mostly luck and being good at corruption and kissing ass not actual merit.

I mean I guess in a way you could argue it still sort of qualifies as a "meritocracy", but it wasnt really one that rewarded anything good sadly so I aint sure yeah.

I think no country runs itself entirely on merit.
I think many western "capitalist" ones do so more than many "socialist" ones, because merit in the capitalist system does tend to bring you up a certain ladder. I will say that from what I heard, Scandinavia and Germany have a decent meritocratic system in their private sector.
In the pre-Industrial world I will say that Imperial China was extremely unique in it's Examination System to raise people in rank due to merit.
Napoleon also had a good system that did this.

But this is fascination of Merit as a end-all determining factor of climbing the ladder has a specific Protestant Christian work ethos behind it. (I am not Christian by the way). While I think it's actually a really good ethos – the reality is, in most, if not all hierarchies, the climb is heavily dependent on networking and loyalty rather than merit.
You'd really enjoy this book I recommend constantly: Dictator's Handbook, it outlines the structures of power and politics in authoritarian, democratic, corporate and any hierarchal regimes. But, if you want a summary CGP Grey did an excellent video on the subject matter: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

@Chewybunny

I would argue that Capitalist countries in general can be meritocratic, if they follow the 'rules' of an ideal market. That is, fair competition instead of monopolies and promoting competence instead of yes-men who get in due to connections. In essence, there has to be some mechanism for wealth and capital to not accumulate, nor have the ability to corrupt laws and 'pull up the ladder'. Otherwise it just descends into oligarchy.

It all comes down to whether you can get competent people in important positions. Have a class of people who have the time to abstain from labour and instead educated themselves? You might end up with a corrupt and stupid nobility a few generations down the line. Elect them? Even that isn't a guarantee to have someone competent, they're just less likely to be as destructive as dictators because they need their populace to be productive (as shown in your video). Test them? It has to be a fair examination, which chooses brains instead of those who can just memorize trivia. Promote them by personal judgement? Good, but you need someone with an eye for talent in power in the first place.

Capitalism works best when it is regulated to prevent excess, and right now, there's a lot of dogma that is equating excess with success, even if it isn't written in plain text.

@chewybunny
"You'd really enjoy this book I recommend constantly: Dictator's Handbook, it outlines the structures of power and politics in authoritarian, democratic, corporate and any hierarchal regimes. But, if you want a summary CGP Grey did an excellent video on the subject matter: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs"

Oh yeah thank you I have seen that video it's really good, still yeah I should check out that book it does look fascinating.

I find structures of power to be fascinating even when dystopian. It's why I find the Soviet Union to be an interesting if often depressing subject of study…it was an interesting time the cold war, WW2, and the such, often morbid as all hell but interesting.

That's a very salient point that I think far too few people (whom, of course, tend to engage in that excess or are striving for that excess) are willing to accept. Indeed, it boggles my mind that Libertarians (you know, big L ones; the ones whom one might genuinely confuse with an-caps) are so repulsed by "the tyranny of state interference in the private" just to be completely complacent with what is, effectively, the tyranny of private interference in the private (see monopolies).

I've actually thought about this quite often under what I considered to be "unscrupulous greed", and how it can best be excised, or at least be frowned upon. While legislation is an effective means to enact regulation to prevent excess, people whom have excess are more than capable of finding means to maintain it regardless (foreign bank accounts, setting up shell companies in 'tax haven' countries of which the actual company is deemed a subsidiary of to abuse tax loopholes, lobbying, etc).

Indeed, I personally think the way forward is a cultural shift; not force people into relinquishing excess but to have it done willingly by a common belief that it is a moral good to do so; or even if not a moral good, of genuine benefit to themselves (for those whom 'themselves' are the be-all end-all of concern). Unfortunately, I don't think this is something that can be expedited and I certainly don't want to force the adoption of a common belief by threat of violence or other coercion. I am, however, confident it is possible and without undermining what are traditionally considered American Values.

A problem with government regulation is the unfortunate tendency for it to cement monopolies by making market entry prohibitively expensive.

Its why major companies can be seen lobbying for things like enviromental regulation as they have the money and lawyers to navigate and bypass whereas the startups run afoul of the miles of fine print or cannot profit while adheiring to often arbitrary standards.

Government interferance all too often becomes merely another tool to limit competition.

This plays part to my point of a need for a cultural/attitude shift of how people treat the wealth they acquire, since regulation is a navigable external pressure but a culture/attitude is an internal pressure and so is much harder to contravene; possible, but harder.

And indeed, as you say, since heavy regulation also tends to facilitate the formation of monopolies (or simply drive businesses away entirely) and monopolies can basically tyrannize consumers with little recourse and almost universally stifle innovation, relying on it as a solution is not what I see to be a good course of action; and of course, other businesses not existing means there is no wealth generation from them to do anything with.

There's one very big advantage that democracy provides – Lowered stakes.

Normally, if you're in the losing side of politics, you can easily face execution or imprisonment. Even if you are near the top, you have to watch your back and choose your actions or words carefully or you're going to be in serious trouble. Also, people are tend to do some absolutely vile things in order to save their own lives, even if these life-threatening situations were caused by their own selfish actions.

However, if functional democracy is installed to at least some extent, then things aren't that bad. If you lose an election or something similar happens, you can often just go back to doing what you did before. That results people taking less extreme measures to keep their positions.

No regulations? Big companies do well. Regulations? Companies still do well.
I would argue its not regulations as a policy tool which is a problem, but that they may no longer be enough. Companies are too big, and a fine means nothing to the rich in comparison to the smaller guys.

I'd wager it's also why extremist governments are popping up. Special interest groups have gotten too much power, which is ironically collapsing the same societies that protect them. There's a saying that those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

Monopolies have to be broken up at this point. Either that, or see these companies become so dominant that there's a corporatocracy.

I just wonder if in many cases, rather than adding more regulations for one side, we should remove regulations from the other side.

As a hyperbole, it would be something similar to "You can add microtransactions but now everyone is allowed to mod them out without having to ask for permission first".

What I can take from this is that humanity is in a constant eternal war against large corporations Like…even when arguing against regulations large corporations still come across as a menace to society/the world, or at least come accross as "the bad guy".

I dont even disagree with the idea that large corporations take advantage of regulations to monopolize the market, that is in fact a massive problem, I am just saying.

I dont like political twitter's way of doing this

How do you call that indicator which basically tells how much people feel the effects of a law or regulation in their everyday lives? An indicator that's especially important in laws that are supposed to improve quality of life, rather than saving lives or a planet.

For an example, take General Data Protection Regulation. Despite the law being in effect, Europeans generally don't feel more secure, they still get targeted ads etc.. However, they feel the frustrating effects of that regulation every day in form of website popup notifications and many websites outright blocking European visitors.

In that sense, we could say that GDPR has failed because it has lowered quality of life.

I'm not entirely sure but I would think it would be something along the lines of "social impact". To use your example, because the GDPR has lowered the perceived quality of life of people/society, I would say the GDPR has had a "negative social impact". You could further tune this with degree modifiers; like "extreme negative social impact" or "minimal positive social impact" and the like.

Is this what you mean?

Yes.

The amount of regulation should exist to further maximize perfect competition, i.e. seek perfect competition No market in the world is a perfect competition market. And it is virtually impossible for such a perfect competition market to exist. Various markets left to their own devices would be on a spectrum of the perfect competition. And the closer the market is to perfect competition, the less regulation is necessary. The further away from perfect competition the greater necessity for regulation exists. Over-regulating a market that is closer to the perfect competition spectrum creates unnecessary drag on the market, in fact, harming it, leading to major problems. Under-regulating a market that is far from a perfect competition also destroys the market.

Incidentally it's why I think there is a necessity to universal healthcare (the healthcare market is extremely far away from perfect competition) despite being strongly against the idea that it is a right or that the current plans for how to implement it in the US are severely flawed, to the point of disaster.

Chewy are you a viewer of SFO? Or read Friedrich Hayek? Because this video here by SFO is a direct encapsulation of what you've said.

I'm a fan of Hayek and have his book the Road to Serfdom. Thanks for the intro to Otaku guy, seems interesting, guy captured my views nicely. But I think he doesn't go into the bigger issues at stake in US
My main concern with universal healthcare is affordability. This country is already operating on a massive deficit, and the level of obesity and dependency we have on pills makes it hard to find a reasonable financial solution. We can't simply tax our way into this. It would require radical change in our system. Of all the YouTube comentstors that offered a position on it is Kraut, his is a good analysis of the situation.

I'm a fan of Hayek and have his book the Road to Serfdom. Thanks for the intro to Otaku guy, seems interesting, guy captured my views nicely. But I think he doesn't go into the bigger issues at stake in US
My main concern with universal healthcare is affordability. This country is already operating on a massive deficit, and the level of obesity and dependency we have on pills makes it hard to find a reasonable financial solution. We can't simply tax our way into this. It would require radical change in our system. Of all the YouTube comentstors that offered a position on it is Kraut, his is a good analysis of the situation.

As per my trend, I also think there needs to be a cultural shift regarding physical health. The fat acceptance movement, in a country where most adults are either overweight or obese, is by FAR the most damaging thing I've witnessed; especially since weight issues (both over and under weight) are major comorbidities. One of the most disgusting commercials I've ever witnessed was for icecream: it was an obese woman 'dancing' while eating icecream with the latent message of "who cares if you get fat eat our icecream anyway". When it comes to medicine I agree; however being someone who has been helped tremendously from medication I have a bias towards it's usage for homeostasis (for example, posting on this very website, even something innocuous, used to cause my heart-rate to spike and make me sweat from anxiety!). However, I can see why something ought to be done regarding the wanton application of stimulants and opioids.

I have heard of Kraut before but I haven't taken the time to watch him; SFO has referenced him several times before so I'll have a look. I'll also have to pick up "Road to Serfdom" as I've heard it now be referenced many times by many people. What's your political news diet by the way if you don't mind sharing? I have, from left most to right most by what I perceive:

Jimmy Dore, SFO, America Uncovered/China Uncensored, Tim Pool, Romanian TVee, Styxhexenhammer, Carl Benjamin, Louis Le Vau

I'm still looking for a "progressive" (or, rather, mainstream progressive) commentator to follow.