If u want the YangGang vote in the primary, just adopt Yang's platform! Add thorium & carbon tax to ur climate plan; add Freedom Dividend, M4A, Ranked-Choice Voting, Democracy Dollars, and add licensing and education requirement for gun ownership. Until then #StillVotingYang
A lot of us will begrudgingly vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination in the general. When it comes down to it, I will vote against Trump. That's the only reason I'll vote Dem at all if Yang isn't on the ballot. Bernie is no better than Hillary in my estimation.
I somewhat liked Michael Bennet and Julian Castro and they would have been my second and third choice options. But everyone that remains in the race now stands equally under the label "well, at least they aren't Trump."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Trinity, a 🧵:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism and the Trinity of the pagan philospher Plotinus. This is especially the case with St. Augustine's conception of the Trinity, where God is conceived as being "absolutely simple."
Plotinus envisions the absolute as "the One." Nous (Divine Mind) & Psyche (World Soul) emanate from the One, together a divine Triad. The material world is an emanation from the lower half of the World Soul—this world eminated from the divine rather than being created ex nihilo.
In both Augustine and Plotinus, the "world of forms" exists in the mind of God. However, Augustine follows Christian orthodoxy in regarding the material world as being created from nothing rather than emanating from the divine.
The difference between anarchism and civic republicanism comes down to a very subtle distinction—a difference in the way they define "domination." Both oppose all forms of domination but they disagree on what constitutes domination.
The anarchist sees domination as any arrangement that is imposed or not voluntary—formal consent and the ability to opt out (consensus/dissensus) is essential to eliminate domination. On the other hand, civic republicans see domination as *arbitrary* imposition.
This distinction between domination as all imposition and only as arbitrary imposition makes a big difference. Rules in an anarchistic social order ought to be voluntarily accepted, not imposed. The individual must have the ability to opt out of the social order and its rules.
Ppl want to means-test things & be fiscally conservative. That's why we can't have nice things but replacing the ACA with UCC and the dysfunctional welfare system with NIT would virtually eliminate poverty and ensure universal healthcare while reducing total gov't spending. (1/4)
Most important policies to implement in order to create a just society:
✔️Basic income (UBI, NIT, social dividend)
✔️Land Value Tax (6%)
✔️ Universal Healthcare (M4A, UCC, UHCV)
✔️Harberger Tax on intellectual property (Common-Ownershup Self-assessed Tax)
(1/5)
✔️ NGDP level targeting
✔️Sahm's direct stimulus automatic stabilizer
✔️STAR voting
✔️National use-of-force standard for police
✔️National registry of fired police officers and prohibition on hiring anyone on the list in any department in the country
(2/5)
✔️Require cops to carry their own professional liability insurance and require them to pay for it out of pocket
✔️Require license, registration, and insurance for firearms—have a shooting and written test to get the license (treat guns like cars)
A radical centrist is one who reads Marx & Hayek & finds them both indispensable—one who read Burke & Kropotkin & was like "these guys both make really good points."—one who wrestles with complexity/uncertainty & settles into a George, Bernstein, or Meade sort of "middle way."
A true radical centrist, in this sense, is always uncertain—a critical rationalist in Popper's sense, knowing the limits of human knowledge—always open to changing their mind, aware that they could be wrong, always learning, never dogmatic, filled with doubts.
But a true radical centrist, unlike Giddens, Blair, and Clinton, remains radical—always seeking to maximize equality, achieve a widespread distribution of income and property, and eliminate poverty altogether, while ensure access to healthcare and social services to all.
The problem with foreign policy and international relations is that it's ridiculously complex and complicated, there's no right answer, everything about it sucks because the reality is fucked, and nobody has any clue what the right thing to do is because the solution is unclear.
Radical libertarianism & anarchism offer critiques of interventionism & the status quo, realpolitik and neoconservatism offers valid counter-arguments, a middle way seems untenable. The more you read on the subject, the more certain you become of your own ignorance & uncertainty.
All the various options are seriously flawed and yet the people in power must choose to act some sort of way. Every option hurts countless people—there's no right answer, no good solution. This is why so many people focus on econ and domestic policy rather than foreign policy.