What is a resolution to the divisions in the USA? \ stacker news ~mostly

What is a resolution to the divisions in the USA?

4229 sats \ 90 comments \ @kepford 8 Oct mostly_harmless

I'm not asking for a prediction of what will happen but rather what would you recommend as a plan to find common ground. To mend the wounds. To prevent violent conflict?

Not looking for someone to debunk my position but rather provide their own thoughts.

In the US there are a large number of people that are completely disenfranchised from the political process. I'm in that camp. Then you have the two main sides in the culture war (there are all sorts of sub-groups but I'm simplifying). These two sides seem to look at elections as the solution. Its winner take all in their mind. Vote harder and we will force our way upon the other half. When one side wins the other side calls foul. They claim the election was rigged, or it was manipulated. Both sides do this. I do not see this changing. At least I have not heard someone explain how it works itself out. Basically each side has demonized the other.

Here's an example from an email from MoveOn.org. They framed the Trump movement as seeking a national ban on abortion. They advocate for a national allowance for abortion. The status quo is that each state decides on abortion. This means that some states can ban it. Others can be more liberal with the procedure. It is true that pretty much as soon as Roe was overturned there were conservatives that started pushing for a nation-wide ban through a law. Now anyone with any knowledge of Congress knows there is no way this happens. Yet, the conservatives pushing for this are throwing red meat to their side. Since Roe was overturned they have lost one of their main rallying cries. Now the Left has a big issue to fight for again.

I mention this specific example because it has been clear to me for some time that neither side has the incentive to govern for every American. They only care about their side and even more accurately their donors.

So what do you do when you have an issue where two sides cannot agree? There are a few options.

Force: Make the other side do what you want.

Force really should be the last option but IMO it appears to be the default for most people. The state/government is predicated on force/violence. This is the low key threat that you will get put in a cage if you go against the state, or rather those that hold state power. I think most people have been indoctrinated to not see the violence inherent in democracy. Put more fairly, the violence in the state. All forms of it.

Compromise: Find some sort of middle ground. Live and let live.

Compromise is better in my view. On the issue of abortion I am opposed to the practice. But that said, I realize that there is a large number of people that support it. I believe the status quo in the US is a pretty good compromise. Each state can determine how they handle it. The issue with compromise is that it requires a sort of attitude in short supply these days. Minding your own affairs and allowing others to live their lives as they see. The incentive structure of the US system of political parties and democracy itself fights against this attitude.

Divide: Separate the groups.

So we are left with the final option. Divide. We see this in practice many places outside of governments. We see it with people who just don't get along. After all, we don't all live together. Even families that love each other need to separate from time to time. I love my extended family but we would have massive conflict if we lived together all the time. We get together for a meal. For the holidays. But we don't live together under a single governance model. We see this in marriage. Who among us believes it is morally right for an abusive husband to force his wife to stay in a marriage? We see it in governments/states as well. Brexit, Switzerland, USSR, and the empires of the past. Mono-governments don't scale.

Imagine we had a global democracy. Imagine the peoples of other cultures having a say in how you live your life. You may opposed secession in the US but can you imagine a global super government ruling over small nations (some of you will say this is the way it is today, and I would be sympathetic to your position). Most people can see the issues, or at least the complexity of placing different cultural groups under a single governing system. Its a question of scale.

With this in mind the best option for the US IMO is secession. I'm not going into this in the detail required to make the arguments and counter arguments but just stating where I'm coming from.

If you disagree with "national divorce" that's fine. What is your solution to the current conflict? Did I miss an option? Is there another option besides force, compromise, and divide? When I talk to people most seem to support force more than any other option (though they would not describe it that way). In my view division is inevitable. The main question is how poorly that goes. Personally I would rather have a peaceful division like that of Brexit or even the USSR.

view all related items

412 sats \ 11 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

I view the biggest problem as what's known as the "perception gap".

In other words, both sides view their opponents as more extreme than they actually are. This leads to hysterics and an inability to find common ground.

So I would recommend that people

Chill out
Learn how to steelman the other side

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. Neither politicians nor business leaders have an incentive to try to close the perception gap. Politicians have more fundraising when they can magnify the perception gap. Media earns views and clicks from outrage porn.

We're in a horrid prisoner's dilemma and it's going to take individual virtue to get out of it.

16 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Yep, well put. You see this in the fear mongering that all sides do. Its rather absurd to me as I have friends on both extremes. Since checking out of the red/blue scam its become even more clear how it works.

I sometimes operate as a therapist to friends that are freaking out.

88 sats \ 8 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

Yeah, I've often had to talk conservative friends off the ledge.

Weird because I live in California, and I absolutely agree with my conservative friends that progressive policies are horrible and damaging the state and country.

Yet I often find myself steelmanning the liberals. If I had more liberal friends I'd probably be doing the opposite.

39 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

How do you steel man radical left policies in California lol

126 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

I think I do less steelmanning and more just telling them that the situation isn't as dire as it sometimes seems.

I speak from experience within a large public university. Yes, there are woke people and woke administrators, and yes the woke policies are getting in the way of education. But the amount of wokeness is a lot less than many people think. It's usually a handful of true believers in key positions, coupled with lipservice by the non-believers. If you can just navigate around the true believers, it's usually okay.

At a macro level though, these small margins eat away at the efficiency of our organizations, so it's still a big problem overall.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 20 Oct

I think I do less steelmanning and more just telling them that the situation isn't as dire as it sometimes seems.

I speak from experience within a large public university. Yes, there are woke people and woke administrators, and yes the woke policies are getting in the way of education. But the amount of wokeness is a lot less than many people think. It's usually a handful of true believers in key positions, coupled with lipservice by the non-believers. If you can just navigate around the true believers, it's usually okay.

At a macro level though, these small margins eat away at the efficiency of our organizations, so it's still a big problem overall.

interesting -- do you see these handful of true believers a) going away? b) holding their ground? c) expanding their influence and/or recruiting more peeps to their ideas?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 21 Oct

a) Within the university, I don't see them going away, because a lot have tenure and universities aren't subject to the brutality of market forces as much as private sector. (They're not totally immune either, so when budget cuts come I do think some of the DEI positions will be the first to get cut. The positions will get cut, but the faculty staffing those positions will likely remain on faculty.)

b/c) I think they are losing influence. I've seen more and more people get comfortable speaking out openly against DEI. At first, it was fine to pay lip service when it didn't affect operations too much. But I think they pushed too hard and now people are pushing back. At my own institutions they introduced some really insane and productivity-hampering hiring policies and many departments are quite upset about it, including my own.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Oct

University can’t be saved or reformed

We need to build something new

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

I concur.

84 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Both sides exaggerate for effect. I often hear ridiculous things from family that are listening to the news. Covid was a great example. On the ground things were different from the way they were portrayed on TV. Things may be factually correct but also over-simplified and over-generalized. Treating movements and even states like monoliths is easier than nuance.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Yep, happens to me often as well as with my liberal friends.

43 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

Divisions have been exacerbated because of censorship of one side

Left wing media has also exacerbated divisions because of bias and misinformation

Higher Education is too political and one sided. Colleges are dogma centers like a madrasah

209 sats \ 4 replies \ @leo 8 Oct

There's no "resolution," pluralism has always been America's biggest strength.

8 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Does pluralism have a breaking point. I guess that is the question? I find it hard to believe that it doesn't.

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @leo 11 Oct

I'm not a history expert but the late 1800s and early 1900s must have been a really chaotic time politically in the states. They literally had a civil war, and extreme political views like communism, theocracy and fascism were apparently much more prevalent in the public sphere 100 years ago

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 11 Oct

That's true and most people do not realize this fact. Specifically the popularity of fascism. I think people are aware of the popularity of communism. The really interesting thing to me is how popular fascism was and how many of the elite class admired the approach. Some (including me) would argue that FDR was basically a fascist in many ways. Or at least did many of the same things and used the same tactics.

Regardless, the US has been divided before. The civil war for example. My hope is that war is not the outcome again. I think most of us alive today in the US haven't really experienced what a all out war is like. I see this in the attitudes of people that talk about conflict so flippantly.

8 sats \ 0 replies \ @Tef 8 Oct

It’s also hard for me to believe that it doesn’t.

245 sats \ 12 replies \ @grayruby 8 Oct

Starts with finding common ground on basic principles. Then stop listening to the media and mentally fragile people need to get off social media. We all have our biases and opinions but it's absurd how social media has created masses of puppets that just repeat whatever their "team" says without second thought or clap like trained seals at everything their "team" does regardless of how stupid it is.

I know this isn't really answering your question the way you want but I think it would go a long way to allowing for the compromise option.

96 sats \ 7 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

Common ground on basic principles

I tried this once with a friend and we couldn’t find common ground on the morality of parking tickets

101 sats \ 6 replies \ @grayruby 8 Oct

A cop once gave me a parking ticket on a small side street outside the Eaton Centre in Toronto because I ran in to drop something off to a customer for 5 minutes, 5 minutes before parking became free for the night. I saw him doing it and tried to explain the situation to him but he wasn't hearing it. I was so pissed off because there are signs everywhere saying no standing and there was about 8 cars just parked there idling waiting to pick up people getting out of work. So, if I sat there idling for 5 minutes and waited until parking was free it's A-ok but if I get out of the car 5 minutes before parking is free I have to pay the minimum 30 mins parking. I said "why aren't you giving these people tickets?" and he just got in his car and drove off like a coward. Clearly he didn't have the balls to confront the people in their cars and instead like a snake lurking in the grass pounced on my vehicle once he saw me walk away from it. As you can see, I am still annoyed about this years later.

91 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

People with power gradually come to realize that it's very difficult to enforce the rules consistently even if you wanted to. They then realize that no matter how hard they try to be just or consistent, that injustice and inconsistency will seep through. Eventually, they stop caring at all and just accept that they can enforce their power arbitrarily.

61 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

enforce their power arbitrarily

This is a good way to describe where we are now on a macro level in the US.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Oct

Stanford prison experiment!

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Bingo

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 8 Oct

Agreed.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Your rationalization of his behavior sounds accurate.

50 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Yep, it sure would.

The incentives just don't line up for media to stop doing what they are doing. I don't see people pushing from compromise or understanding even. People (including me) get hooked on arguments and the emotions connected with anger and outrage. We form habits and fall into these traps over and over again. This is why I think division/separation is the likely and probably best option until a plurality of people get it. They get the game.

66 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 8 Oct

It is difficult to find compromise when the base of each party thinks the other side is evil. If they would all just realize it is the people who want them to feel that way that are evil.

74 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Hence the separation advice. I think the US is past compromise. I don't think there is going back.

85 sats \ 0 replies \ @Signal312 8 Oct

Yeah interesting, talk about secession comes along pretty frequently on some of the podcasts I listen to (i.e. Tom Woods).

98 sats \ 0 replies \ @Golu 8 Oct

I would disagree to any form of divorce for US. The divisional conflict is rather exaggerated. The best solution is to let the political hounds run behind horses. Be a man of indifference to any politics might be best for us

79 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Another thought. I often share spaces with people that oppose my views. If I'm honest its probably most of the time.

I often attend events like concerts. I work with people. I go to church with people. I have neighbors. The vast majority of them disagree with me. I get along with them for the most part. Why? Because in these situations and spaces they aren't forcing their views on me by force. I'm not doing this to them either. There's a lesson there. One few are interested in teaching.

Those that rule over us use division to gain power and to control us. They use fear of the other to keep us in line. They use fear of most possible outcomes to make us push logic out of our minds.

I'm not kidding myself. I know most people are just followers. But chances are, you aren't a follower if you are into bitcoin or a stacker. You aren't perfectly logical either, but you probably aren't average. Think. Use your mind. Use empathy.

No matter who wins this current election we will still have division and hatred that we have now. Don't kid yourself. Elections aren't going to fix divisions. At least that I can see.

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Oct

If the state (particularly the national one) were less powerful there would simply be less scope for political conflict. That's the version of compromise that I think could alleviate the need for separation.

The problem is that the path to a less powerful state runs against pretty much everything we know about Public Choice Theory. Secession is far more plausible.

43 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

Agreed. Part of the reason the conflicts are intensifying is because the power of the Federal government is growing, so more feels at stake.

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

We need more federalism

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

One observation I have is that I see a lot of finger pointing but very little personal contemplation.

One side blames the other. They both have points. But that isn't an answer. I've been thinking about this conflict since the early 2000's. Little has changed. I don't think those in political power care. I don't think most Americans have really thought about solutions. They are too busying playing blame games.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 8 Oct

As dumb as the term "whataboutism" is, that is the point it's getting at.

The problem is that honest reflection is completely contrary to the psychology of partisanship. Again, secession is far more plausible.

Once the two sides are not at each other's throats, because they aren't fighting for control of the same thing anymore, they'll be able to get along with each other. Red state Americans don't hate Europeans with the same passion that they hate Democrats, even though ideologically they might be even farther apart.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Good point. It is comical to me how many on the Christian right support the State of Israel. If it were a political party in the US they would likely hate it like they hate the democrats.

The modern man has a hard time separating nation from state, and nation from individual.

62 sats \ 4 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 8 Oct

What are peoples thoughts around compulsory voting? I've heard some arguments around how if everyone is "forced" to vote, otherwise pay a fine, that it could take some of the more inflammatory parts of politicing out of the mainstream. Currently politicians target their base and rile them up with rhetoric to motivate them to vote, ie "vote or die" or recently the Trump/Musk statements that if they lose it will be the last election they vote in. If voting is compulsory, then there is less of a need to get people "motivated" to vote and thus less of the divisiveness we see in the run up to elections. There are 21 countries in the world that have this type of voting, some more than other. Just curious, because the fear mongering as a rallying cry has a lot to do with it in my mind. I haven't thought much of the downsides to this system however.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

compulsory voting

Not a fan.

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 8 Oct

What's your reason for not liking it? Legit curious to hear objections to it. Are you opposed because you don't like the compulsory aspect or do you not think it will have any impact on reducing the rhetoric/divisiveness in politics?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @senf 9 Oct

If someone doesn't want to vote I'm not sure I'd want to count their vote.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Both.

I don't think voting or not voting is the problem and for sure isn't a solution.

I believe the problem is cultural and if it is to be solved people have to stop trying to enforce their way through the use of force. I am not ready to say that voting is violence but it can lead to that. I do not have a moral problem with people voting to defend themselves but again, its not going to fix the problems we have.

The deep problem to me is that we are trying to co-exist with people that do not want to co-exist. They want to use force to enforce their moralities on others. This is not a right wing only thing. It is on both sides. They just have different moralities.

There is deep hatred between these groups. Often it seems these people hate an invisible man. A fabrication by their side. A boogie man. This is one mechanism of control. The media and parties build up tension up into the election and the election is supposed to release this tension. That used to work but it has started to fail as neither side is willing to accept the outcomes. They each act as if the problem is 100% the other side.

When families cut people out because of how they are voting... we have a deep and stupid problem. There is a pretense that the state has its power by the consent of the people. But many voters really only give lip service to that. In truth they just want their own way and they want to force it on others.

I'm not opposed to all forms of voting. I think given a small enough system voting for those that have narrowly delegated power could and probably does work much better than the super state empire called the US. Again, I think our issues are cultural deep seated.

As many have said in this post, its a zero sum game as it stands and that's not good.

60 sats \ 1 reply \ @TNStacker 12 Oct

The only thing that has ever brought Americans together is external threat.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 12 Oct

You aren't wrong

61 sats \ 2 replies \ @OT 8 Oct

How about an alien awakening? They come down revealing some new insight and people wake up from their petty infighting.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Lol. Like that you're coming up with something different.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 8 Oct

Thats what it might take. Something extraordinary

80 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 8 Oct

Ignore the media, don't get triggered by idiots.... just live your life and respect your peers and neighbors, you will get the same treatment (one would hope)....

59 sats \ 3 replies \ @Manikese 8 Oct

Yoga

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

It wouldn't hurt. That's for sure.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

Too many yoga practitioners are crunchy granola EV drivers with Prada 👜

59 sats \ 0 replies \ @Manikese 8 Oct

Lmao. I mean real Yoga / Yoga Sciences. It isn’t some posing or stretching. There aren’t “instructors”.

52 sats \ 4 replies \ @kenn_b 8 Oct

Split the country in 4 individual republics and be done with it:).

Medieval bible beaters - want to go back in time, stop progress (not saying the progress is positive, but trying to stop it is futile) and be delusional together
Dictator worshipers - just want someone to make all the decisions, like the orange man
Democracy - same as now with corrupt gov't in charge
Free republic - live by the Bitcoin standard

Btw, live and let live is wonderful, until people with different views start telling you, you cannot do something, like have an abortion. A bit hypocritical in this situation, isn't it?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Medieval bible beaters

Not trying to pick on you, I get it but this kind of language is part of why we are where we are. And its pretty common from all sides. Its one reason for the dissidence I experience when I suggest secession. So many people clearly despise those they disagree with on politics yet for some reason they still want to share the same country / state with them. Logically it makes little sense to me.

live and let live is wonderful, until people with different views start telling you, you cannot do something

This is my point. There are simply issues were compromise isn't much of an option. Voting with your feet should be though.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kenn_b 11 Oct

you are totally correct. This is exactly what is wrong. When people start thinking their convictions need to be pushed on others, this is what happens.

Abortion as an example, if everyone had a choice to choose what they want to do, isn't that a compromise? If I do not agree, nobody is forcing me to have it, if I choose to have it, nobody should tell me I cannot.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 11 Oct

You have to know that the disagreement on abortion is about the baby and its rights. Some believe it has rights and some do not. Some believe it is a human and others do not.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kenn_b 12 Oct

that is a good point, but the compromise is still the same, each person can decide for themselves. If someone chooses to have abortion, they have to live with the consequences. This topic is not so complicated, until people start pressing their views.

52 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 8 Oct

More federalism and state rights

The progressive objective is to dismantle federalism

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Essentially this is the best alt to seccestion IMO but seems unlikely.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 8 Oct

I believe in freedom, freedom to speak/think and dissent, to associate/dissociate, and this is not compatible with any model based on (the threat of) violence. I believe that current mainstream governance models are ripe for disruption, and that we're in a transition period. I am convinced that we now have the right tools to implement a more just and fairer model, grounded in freedoms and I have no doubt that we are going to get there eventually, but It's a multi generational project. Discussions like this one are therefore crucial because it's going to get messy, and we will need them to stay on a sane and constructive path. We've tried everything, now it's time to give freedom a go.

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 8 Oct

Love god and love country above all!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8 Oct

Control structures to keep the peasants obedient to their masters... The fiat debt slavery bankers cartel owns your government.

45 sats \ 3 replies \ @beorange 8 Oct

Learn to live with the differences.

Everybody has their own vision of the world, everybody has their own opinions. Nobody really agrees on everything, even within the same party, group, tribe, family (if they do, they probably are headless idiots).

So, you must accept that you will not live in "the perfect world" you envision. Learn to compromise and accept the different ways of thinking.

Note: the above doesn't mean you don't try to expose your view and try to persuade people. It just means your success will be limited and you must accept that.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

That's great for the individual but I'm referring to the macro.

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @beorange 8 Oct

Teach this to enough people, make it part of your culture, eventually it solves your macro problem.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

You are correct but based on the few number of people that are promoting these values I doubt this is a near term outcome. I think a break up will happen before this lesson is learned by enough people to avoid it.

But what you are saying is how I try to operate.

45 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8 Oct

The problem is the amount of money involved in sponsorship of politicians. USA is no longer a functional democracy- it is a crony capital failing state. People know their vote is a joke- whoever they vote for is already owned by corporate sponsors. If all citizens could unite to oppose the ongoing corruption that is caused by wealthy corporates owning virtually all US politicians then maybe a solution could begin.

44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 9 Oct

I saw your comment in Stacker Salon about being disappointed in the responses so while I feel in my initial comment I addressed a key issue facing any solution I want to run through the ones you came up with and see if I might scratch the itch of a new one.

Starting with Force I mean I hate to be that person but if you deploy a Left vs Right fight I honest to God don’t think it is fair. Obviously the Left will have severe issues and to help them out you give them the US military. Well given what we have seen in Ukraine and giving wild ass rednecks free rain kinda negates each other as bombing the Right into oblivion will only foster resentment from those left alive leading to and insurgency.

Compromise is by far the best and at the end of the day people need to remember that while the Founders wanted a “strong” central government they didn’t want one that marched over states rights. The issue preventing a solution here as terrible as it sounds is nothing “to bad” has happened from either side to force themselves to look in the mirror. The youth wants to change the world and compromise seems to have missed the majority of the generation. The idea of no or I don’t agree has been bent into somehow attacking them.

Divide… hypothetically let’s say the US divided up. Well the farmers in Cali’s Central Valley are pretty deep red while most major cities are blue. I’m not sure how you are able to divide anything up then without internal conflict breaking out within the states. Imagine the farmers in Cali just stop growing food not only does it hit the state but the rest of the other states as well.

Solution… I hate to be the one that says it but some major world altering event needs to occur. Be it aliens land on earth, a terror attack or war breaks out across the world nothing brings together a country like an existential threat. Politics and media have gone so far one way or another a reset is needed. How that happens I have no clue but given the state of the world it isn’t a crazy thing. Democrats are warmongers with Ukraine but not with Israel Republicans are isolationists except with Israel.

Israel could very well be the key. Either that or a good old EMP to fry all of our phones and computers to pump the breaks on social media. Hopefully this is something that tickles your itch.

EDIT: On Cap Hill it’s sadly hilarious how much Members tend to get along within the complex then rain fire on each other outside. Neither party has a true unifying leader and that is severely needed.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 8 Oct

getting enough people to "leave the abusive nation" by establishing their own nation can probably work. this option is in plain sight. however, people are hoping to receive permission to do that. finding good definitions of nationality and nation is a bit more tricky, but the best definitions are beautiful and make sense.

(23) 'The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.' 8 USC § 1101(a)(23)

the bible says to not make graven images, so the ultimate nation is the living breathing man or woman who says "i am capable of taking care of my own business." nations can make alliances and unions with other nations or independent men & women, and those agreements have equal consideration (fair value as judged by one and another) by well-informed consent.

41 sats \ 4 replies \ @7e6e393a56 8 Oct freebie

I didn't understand? You propose the extinction of the state with libertarian thinking, but defend the USRR. There was nothing peaceful about the Soviet Union, power was taken by force by the proletariat.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

LOL.

I'm not defending the USSR. I am pointing out that it dissolved. And honestly, it dissolved with less violence than we would expect.

The USSR's failure is hopeful to me. I often bring it up to doomers that think the USA is screwed. I mean the state is screwed we are far from were the USSR was when it fell apart. I'm not a doomer and I'm for sure not putting up the USSR as an example of how to do things. My point is that it failed. It fell apart. And even in a case as bad as the USSR the conflict was not as bad as we would think if we were playing it out in our heads.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8 Oct

USSR conceded defeat when the USA worked with the Teleban to block the export of vast oil and gas reserves in central asia Khazakstan by the USSR. Empires like the USSR and USA are dependent ultimately upon economic viability. Today USA is losing the economic war with China- while still in control of most international protocols and with a stronger overall military the strength of the US is trending downward while Chinas strength is trending upward. Today with both Iran and Russia reliant upon China for both export of their oil and gas and for supply of most manufactured goods China is demonstrating an alternative to US hegemony. Russia economy today is 1/50th the size of Chinas. Putin has made Russia a Chinese tributary. If the Saudis were to agree to ditching USD petro dollar then the USA would be insolvent very swiftly and China would emerge as the dominant global power. This trend looks unlikely to reverse as USA continues with its decadent internal dysfunction.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Not sure what point you are making. Seems interesting but unrelated.

My ultimate point was that as bad as things were during the fall of the USSR it is likely better to live in Russia today than it was back then. And the fall was largely peaceful. My point is that the US empire will fall and I don't hear many alternative futures being put forward that make sense to me. Ones where the many cultures in the US can co-exist under one national government.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8 Oct

Are you serious??? Today Russia is a war crimes committing police state where citizens have zero freedom of speech and the economy is now entirely dependent upon China. Putin is Xis proxy war waging bitch.

Yes, agree the USA empire looks like falling soon but the known facts point to the most probable new empire one that is directed from China, sure as hell not Russia. Chinas economy is huge compared to Russia and Chinas ability to build a new empire including trade payments independent of SWIFT is already operational and demonstrable- Russia is just a tribute state dependency of Chinas emerging new empire.

39 sats \ 2 replies \ @guts 8 Oct

The problem is the elite, plain and simple.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

What's the solution then? A new elite? No elite? That seems unlikely.

43 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 8 Oct

To be honest I don't know 😅, they are too powerful.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 8 Oct

One of the biggest issues that any and every country faces is the spread of information is lightening fast now when that was not the case in the past. Doesnt matter what the info is but because of how fast it spread even if the government does something to address the issue people are still upset. In the past the government solution could catch up so instead of it being a X happened it was a X happened and the government did Y. Thats no longer the case and is creating issues in really every country.

34 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 8 Oct

So what do you do when you have an issue where two sides cannot agree?

Don't they hold referendums in the US?

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

No.

And our population has been so propagandized that they don't know why...

The USA is a collection of sovereign states. At least it was when it was formed. Some states have referendums. Others do not. This was a defense against direct democracy and some of its risks. Tyranny of the majority.

But is a national vote a solution? How does this resolve conflict better than state by state referendums? IMO most Americans are self centered but they are propagandized to care what people on the other side of the country can or can't do. Instead of leaving their governance up to them, they want to force others to do what they believe is right.

Its odd to me how someone can oppose a government forcing its will on another country across the globe but be just fine doing so in the US. I never get a logically pleasing response to this.

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @kenn_b 11 Oct

btw, u cannot have referendums in complex topics. most people are not experts in everything, so cannot see future reprocussions of their votes

37 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

We (humans) are incredibly selfish. The current political system feeds into this flaw. Most people just operate in what do I want mode. And I want someone to fight for me. Those that have more empathy are often pulled in one direction and those with less are pulled in the other direction.

55 sats \ 3 replies \ @zapsammy 8 Oct

humans are not inherently evil or good; they become this way. men and women are programmable and are programmed since birth.

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

I disagree. Humans have both good and evil in them. You see selfishness in children from an early age. But yes, we are all very influenceable as well but we aren't a blank slate. Its both IMO.

If you read the Bible cover to cover it basically shows this. The fall of man, the redemption of man through Christ.

57 sats \ 1 reply \ @zapsammy 8 Oct

if my view is true, when did the programming really start?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8 Oct

Adam and Eve in the garden by the serpent.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rebel_nomad 9 Oct

The world desperately need a complete collapse, nothing less... So please, get on with it!

We survived the collapse of the Soviet Union, only to get this, the collapse will be on a scale hard to fathom, but as a species we can survive, as long as its all shattered into a million pieces...

This is what we need, and can hope for, but I fear we'll get a more gradual breakup that is way more risky, and harder to navigate. Oh well, at least this time around we have Bitcoin and uncensorable platforms like Nostr!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 9 Oct

The resolution for divisions in the US honestly is a few things. I think education, religion and upward mobility between classes.

Each of these have taken a beating over the past 10-20 years, and a way back is to restore these things.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 9 Oct

The best we can do is individually secede with bitcoin. At a state level, all they can do is lean into states rights as heavily as possible until they reach a breaking point with the federal government. Then what happens next is hard to predict.