Ummmmmm: Should marriage and social benefits be managed by Party? Or separate Internal Admin for Domestic Programs funded by optional tax breaks/credi

[emilynghiem]

Starting a new thread, after replies to ummmmmm on another thread branched off from age of consent/marriage to consent of taxpayers and beliefs about marriage and social benefits attached.

Please see below reply for the longer Post.

Here is the shorter post summarizing the new topic:
=========

Since the thread was supposed to be about minors getting married, not social benefits attached to marriage, I could repost my last comments and start a thread for how could parties be used to separate beliefs about marriage and benefits from govt.

"I could see either parties managing cooperative benefits per precinct and collectively statewide or nationwide

Or splitting federal govt into two administrations for domestic/internal social policies between people and states vs. External duties that focus on national security, interstate commerce, and physical not personal matters the other admin addresses."

Let me start a new thread. Thanks ummmmmm

How this relates to CONSTITUTIONALISM:
States could mediate policies with their own citizens per district, and not necessarily impose mandates for the entire state or nation.

So if populations disagree on beliefs, either within their own states such as parties divided 50/50 over abortion or vaccine mandates, the parties can democratize health care per precinct or district to represent taxpayer choice; and still allow govt policy where all residents and voters agree universally.

In any case, to protect consent of taxpayers voters and residents from abuse of political power for coercion, exclusion, discrimination or oppression I recommend teaching conflict resolution and peer mediation in schools as standard civics education. As well as offering assistance with mediation and redressing grievances through party precincts or electoral college districts so all people and parties are represented in public policy.

This would allow earlier detection, intervention, prevention and correction of any abuses of collective authority, entities or resources that otherwise violate Constitutional protections and Civil Rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am trying to understand your position. (Please freely do a full reset of my view if I am just not getting it, there is no pride attached, this is purely trying to exchange ideas.)

Your statement about competence to enter into contracts is clear to me, no questions.

Whether the other is called "marriage," "civil unions," or "domestic partnerships," or anything else, it seems to me it will clearly be both (1) subjective, and (2) a category of relationship a majority of the populace demands receives favorable treatment, in whatever form (tax benefits or otherwise). We can move that debate around anywhere and land it in different places -- e.g., which relationships are sanctioned by a church, which organizations count as a church, whether churches should be out of the loop and the criteria should be applied by some other body -- but the end result is always to ask which relationships get the special, favorable treatment ordinary voters demand for (currently) marriage. No?

A. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal/financial contracts only. Like neutral LLC type partnerships. This means govt stays out of social relations and only has courts preside over contractual disputes like any other business deal that doesn't require the two parties to a contract to have personal relations socially, only to agree by mutual consent, sound mind, and legal competence to common terms.

B. Whatever conditions or beliefs people "favor" would be up to them and their groups that agree to support those.

Parties have enough members, resources, and structures in every state and nationwide to manage their own tax paid benefits or credits.

The advantage is they would get the terms they believe in without having to fight legally with anyone else of other beliefs.

As for what we ALL agree on, yes, that CAN remain public policy.

However, if people insist on imposing terms on marriage others don't consent to under state govt, then NO, we would have to stick to neutral terms and keep the rest private.

I have consulted with Conservative Republicans, progressive Democrats who want universal care, and independent Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Christian Anarchists.

Giving Tax Credits and breaks so people can fund and manage Cooperatives under their own choice and beliefs about terms and conditions appears to accommodate all of these groups and approaches.

The people and groups still need to consult and agree how to set up the terms before we could get such a system to work.

The motivation to compel this reform
A. Either establishing that the existing system is discriminatory and excludes public accommodations for people or groups of other creeds whose beliefs are violated
B. The advantages of investing in party and church run Cooperatives, for democratically decided and universal access to sustainable benefits, exceeds the current wasteful system of fighting over limits and bureaucratic costs and burdens of govt and denying accountability/accommodations for taxpayers of opposing beliefs.

The issues that prove diverse beliefs cannot be accommodated equally by govt mandates:
1. Conflicting beliefs over funding or endorsing/legalizing abortion
2. Conflicting beliefs about vaccines or govt shutdowns of business while relying on taxpayer money to support social or economic demands
3. Different beliefs in or degrees of the role of govt in health care under which conditions.

If we can agree on advantages while acknowledging partisan abuse of govt violates Constitutional equal protections and public accommodations, we might move toward better solutions and how Party structures could work for us instead of against us in achieving respective goals without conflict and obstruction.

 

[candycorn]

No.

But we should have a limit on the number of characters in a title.

 

[ummmmmm]

I'm not sure it works, but troubleshooting is not the starting point. I like what I think are some of the benefits and philosophical direction of this. What do you see as the reasons to move in this direction if we could make the details work? Dangers/problems? I.e., what's the big picture pro/con?

 

[emilynghiem]

No.

But we should have a limit on the number of characters in a title.

There is a limit.

No.

But we should have a limit on the number of characters in a title.

Hi candycorn! I hope you can chime in on more than just the character limits.

As you can see, there is a limit, which I ran over.

Maybe if I limited the number of m's in ummmmmm, I could have squeezed in the last 2 letters.

The reason the title has a longer description is to cover the multiple conditions that political solutions need to include to represent key objectives of different party approaches to govt and beliefs about health care and tax policy.

My progressive friends want to know universal care will have guaranteed equal access, and my libertarian friends want to protect free choice from govt rationing or regulating collectively.

To achieve both, the Cooperative health plans and benefits seem ideal.

To placate liberals who want govt guarantees, the tax credits would tie it back with federal govt to satisfy the need for security. But still allow free choice for members of parties with different beliefs about health care.

candycorn: if all prochoice voters could fund their health care policies without obstruction or compromising/clashing with either prolife taxpayers or Constitutionalist/Libertarians opposed to federal govt taking over health care from states or people (or Christians who believe all health care should be through nonprofits or churches voluntarily), would you rather see Democrats put their money and taxes directly into health care?

Would you support a Medical alternative to mandatory military service so more people could sign up for paid training, jobs, and benefits of health care and education?

This would address the objection that health care as a "right" cannot impose "involuntary servitude."
So if people who believe in health care as mandatory could be required to support mandatory training and service to provide enough health care to meet the demands.
While those who treat this as optional can still have that as an option to pay for instead.

candycorn there are multiple beliefs about govt and health care that public policy would have to accommodate equally. That's why this topic branches out into several angles that all need to be addressed to include everyone equally.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not sure it works, but troubleshooting is not the starting point. I like what I think are some of the benefits and philosophical direction of this. What do you see as the reasons to move in this direction if we could make the details work? Dangers/problems? I.e., what's the big picture pro/con?

The best advantages are that in troubleshooting different approaches, parties and taxpayers would have a CHOICE and direct say in investing in the alternatives they are WILLING to explore and cover costs of starting with.

Either way, we are already experimenting by live trial and error. We might as well AGREE what we are willing to fund or defund. ummmmmm By organizing test pilot programs per party precinct or district, we have better chances of tracking the effects and effectiveness where people AGREE to a common policy and WANT it to work transparently, without distorting reports as we have now with people DISAGREEING on policy and wanting each other to FAIL.


That freedom to fund their own programs and priorities should eliminate most of the barriers caused by people not believing in funding the same approaches or policies between one party conflicting with another.

The biggest barrier personally is either fear of change or fear that "other groups" will fight and not support such a system.

The Cooperatives already operating are licensed in certain states, like TX and one in KS, but other states having different licensing and regulations would have more legal steps to go through to set up Cooperatives.

If people are motivated enough to set up Cooperatives in their region, it still takes a lot of work. But if Govt were to step in and help, this introduces fear or risk of govt screwing up the programs with added bureaucracy and costs that defeat the purpose.

Some fear is real: people not experienced with ability to manage on their own don't feel comfortable taking on responsibility for decision making they thought other party or govt staff can do better.

That lack of experience and knowledge is a major area causing disparity.

Also, many of the people who WANT the cooperative plans can't afford group plans without pitching it to their employers first. And the people who CAN afford the group plans may already be under employer or spouse plans that involve getting other people to agree to switch to cooperative plans (which are cheaper by half, while offering better coverage and wiping out deductibles).


The other area seems more psychological: both left and right have such deep prejudices (assuming "the left wants free health care paid and controlled by govt and doesn't want to do the work to actually provide and pay for the services but expects govt to do this using other people's taxes and labor" or "the right wants to block the public getting universal access, but expects charity to cover this voluntarily while not wanting to pay or provide help, then relying on govt health care anyway despite protesting it") that they both cite "the other group" as refusing solutions.

When both sides claim "I support that but the other group won't" as the reason they won't support it, because it won't do any good, then nothing changes.

I don't know what you call this phenomenon or syndrome. Maybe a form of bystander syndrome, that each person is waiting on other people to endorse or participate before they get the cue to join in.

If no one is supporting this publicly, there "must be something wrong with it." So let's keep fighting politically for or against govt health care, since everyone else is taking sides.

What I suggest:
A. For Democrats to get on board, tie Cooperatives with converting prisons into teaching hospitals to manage mental and criminal illness more effectively by early diagnosis and treatment/rehab to PREVENT crime. So for each person NOT sent to prison at $30K to $50,000 a year per inmate, that tax money saved can pay for medical interns to mentor and treat patients s both public health and medical education are covered without raising taxes but using resources otherwise wasted on criminal justice on crimes that could be prevented.

B. To get Christians or Conservatives on board who are opposed to abortion, or vaccines, or govt health care: offer to use Cooperatives to separate districts to pay for their own policies and manage their own resources. This can include alternatives that other groups don't believe in like Christian Spiritual Healing to cure causes of abuse and addiction on a voluntary basis to cut costs of crime and disease by natural therapies.

C. Costs of setting up jobs and benefits through Cooperatives can also be paid for by assessing Credits owed to taxpayers for criminal racketeering, trafficking, corporate or govt abuses that wasted taxpayer funds and incurred tangible debts documented on record. Both leftwing and rightwing political groups are opposed to govt corruption and creating unapproved debts charged to taxpayers while wrongdoers benefited.

D. People opposed to excess military or border spending, or costs of the death penalty, or pandemic responses that cost people their jobs, health or businesses etc. could be encouraged to support Cooperatives in exchange for resolving objections by taxpayers who want their money to go into better alternatives.

If the work it takes to make this change is so great that it is daunting,
then tying it to big changes each group is already demanding may make it worth the effort and cost.

This would help answer the objection "but the other group won't agree to make these changes": yes, they will -- if it means they get to DEFUND the death penalty, or abortion, or get to live under the pandemic policy of their choice. By tying what they want into the agreements for setting up.Cooperatives , then as long as the work it takes is helping meet their objectives then they are more likely to agree.

Some people can see this.
Others keep envisioning "but other groups will block it" and keep going in circles with that fear of "other people."

 

[ummmmmm]

The best advantages are that in troubleshooting different approaches, parties and taxpayers would have a CHOICE and direct say in investing in the alternatives they are WILLING to explore and cover costs of starting with.

Either way, we are already experimenting by live trial and error. We might as well AGREE what we are willing to fund or defund. ummmmmm By organizing test pilot programs per party precinct or district, we have better chances of tracking the effects and effectiveness where people AGREE to a common policy and WANT it to work transparently, without distorting reports as we have now with people DISAGREEING on policy and wanting each other to FAIL.


That freedom to fund their own programs and priorities should eliminate most of the barriers caused by people not believing in funding the same approaches or policies between one party conflicting with another.

The biggest barrier personally is either fear of change or fear that "other groups" will fight and not support such a system.

The Cooperatives already operating are licensed in certain states, like TX and one in KS, but other states having different licensing and regulations would have more legal steps to go through to set up Cooperatives.

If people are motivated enough to set up Cooperatives in their region, it still takes a lot of work. But if Govt were to step in and help, this introduces fear or risk of govt screwing up the programs with added bureaucracy and costs that defeat the purpose.

Some fear is real: people not experienced with ability to manage on their own don't feel comfortable taking on responsibility for decision making they thought other party or govt staff can do better.

That lack of experience and knowledge is a major area causing disparity.

Also, many of the people who WANT the cooperative plans can't afford group plans without pitching it to their employers first. And the people who CAN afford the group plans may already be under employer or spouse plans that involve getting other people to agree to switch to cooperative plans (which are cheaper by half, while offering better coverage and wiping out deductibles).


The other area seems more psychological: both left and right have such deep prejudices (assuming "the left wants free health care paid and controlled by govt and doesn't want to do the work to actually provide and pay for the services but expects govt to do this using other people's taxes and labor" or "the right wants to block the public getting universal access, but expects charity to cover this voluntarily while not wanting to pay or provide help, then relying on govt health care anyway despite protesting it") that they both cite "the other group" as refusing solutions.

When both sides claim "I support that but the other group won't" as the reason they won't support it, because it won't do any good, then nothing changes.

I don't know what you call this phenomenon or syndrome. Maybe a form of bystander syndrome, that each person is waiting on other people to endorse or participate before they get the cue to join in.

If no one is supporting this publicly, there "must be something wrong with it." So let's keep fighting politically for or against govt health care, since everyone else is taking sides.

What I suggest:
A. For Democrats to get on board, tie Cooperatives with converting prisons into teaching hospitals to manage mental and criminal illness more effectively by early diagnosis and treatment/rehab to PREVENT crime. So for each person NOT sent to prison at $30K to $50,000 a year per inmate, that tax money saved can pay for medical interns to mentor and treat patients s both public health and medical education are covered without raising taxes but using resources otherwise wasted on criminal justice on crimes that could be prevented.

B. To get Christians or Conservatives on board who are opposed to abortion, or vaccines, or govt health care: offer to use Cooperatives to separate districts to pay for their own policies and manage their own resources. This can include alternatives that other groups don't believe in like Christian Spiritual Healing to cure causes of abuse and addiction on a voluntary basis to cut costs of crime and disease by natural therapies.

C. Costs of setting up jobs and benefits through Cooperatives can also be paid for by assessing Credits owed to taxpayers for criminal racketeering, trafficking, corporate or govt abuses that wasted taxpayer funds and incurred tangible debts documented on record. Both leftwing and rightwing political groups are opposed to govt corruption and creating unapproved debts charged to taxpayers while wrongdoers benefited.

D. People opposed to excess military or border spending, or costs of the death penalty, or pandemic responses that cost people their jobs, health or businesses etc. could be encouraged to support Cooperatives in exchange for resolving objections by taxpayers who want their money to go into better alternatives.

If the work it takes to make this change is so great that it is daunting,
then tying it to big changes each group is already demanding may make it worth the effort and cost.

This would help answer the objection "but the other group won't agree to make these changes": yes, they will -- if it means they get to DEFUND the death penalty, or abortion, or get to live under the pandemic policy of their choice. By tying what they want into the agreements for setting up.Cooperatives , then as long as the work it takes is helping meet their objectives then they are more likely to agree.

Some people can see this.
Others keep envisioning "but other groups will block it" and keep going in circles with that fear of "other people."

I really like any opportunity to break through our current logjams and allow like-minded citizens to support what they prioritize most. For example, there is PLENTY of money on the left, and the left wants free medical care for all (simplifying). So ... let's do it. Through private funding, get past the fight to bring the federal government on board. See how it goes where it happens, vs. how it goes where it doesn't, and we'll all be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions about whether it is a good thing. Actual data and knowledge ... so much better than partisans on each sides demonizing each others' ideas forever.

 

[emilynghiem]

I really like any opportunity to break through our current logjams and allow like-minded citizens to support what they prioritize most. For example, there is PLENTY of money on the left, and the left wants free medical care for all (simplifying). So ... let's do it. Through private funding, get past the fight to bring the federal government on board. See how it goes where it happens, vs. how it goes where it doesn't, and we'll all be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions about whether it is a good thing. Actual data and knowledge ... so much better than partisans on each sides demonizing each others' ideas forever.

Thanks ummmmmm
A. There is already a Conservative following around Medical Associations, with Sean Hannity publicizing AtlasMD
And Sen. Rand Paul also advocating these alternatives as the solution to health care
B. For 10-12 years of records documenting the costs (at Medicare pricing) and savings for Cooperative members (about 2500 in Houston), Donald McCormick of TBT.org founder of www.PDMPwebsite.org has those compiled and has already planned more sites in Dallas TX, Maine and NC.

I already introduced him to Cathy Courtney, Secretary of Health Care For All TX.

If we can put together the numbers and estimates Don has compiled for how much it takes to support Cooperatives of 100-300 members, 1500-2500, and up, then we can start meeting with party chairs and precincts to pitch this as the most workable avenue for democraticizing health care per district and per party.

Don says the best model for govt health care is Singapore, at 3% tax that pays for catastrophic insurance through govt while citizens have HSA they control themselves. With a population of 10M, that means all Democrats in Texas could support their own health care.

I would like to invite progressive party leaders like Cortez and Sanders, Yang and Steyer to set up Microlending to launch Cooperative benefits and jobs in community development until the programs can pay back and pay for themselves plus invest in sustainable business over time.

Do you have a preference for which party or public leaders you would like to work with on pitching pilot programs?

 

[ummmmmm]

Thanks ummmmmm
A. There is already a Conservative following around Medical Associations, with Sean Hannity publicizing AtlasMD
And Sen. Rand Paul also advocating these alternatives as the solution to health care
B. For 10-12 years of records documenting the costs (at Medicare pricing) and savings for Cooperative members (about 2500 in Houston), Donald McCormick of TBT.org founder of www.PDMPwebsite.org has those compiled and has already planned more sites in Dallas TX, Maine and NC.

I already introduced him to Cathy Courtney, Secretary of Health Care For All TX.

If we can put together the numbers and estimates Don has compiled for how much it takes to support Cooperatives of 100-300 members, 1500-2500, and up, then we can start meeting with party chairs and precincts to pitch this as the most workable avenue for democraticizing health care per district and per party.

Don says the best model for govt health care is Singapore, at 3% tax that pays for catastrophic insurance through govt while citizens have HSA they control themselves. With a population of 10M, that means all Democrats in Texas could support their own health care.

I would like to invite progressive party leaders like Cortez and Sanders, Yang and Steyer to set up Microlending to launch Cooperative benefits and jobs in community development until the programs can pay back and pay for themselves plus invest in sustainable business over time.

Do you have a preference for which party or public leaders you would like to work with on pitching pilot programs?

Nonpartisan sources of authority would probably be more credible. As soon as you say Hannity, I wonder what the underlying uninformed hate agenda is. As soon as you say Paul, I wonder what the underlying honest crazy is. And if you said Pelosi, I'd be slightly less scared, but still frightened, because the only thing I trust about her is that her political enemies are worse. If Obama and Bush agreed on something, that would carry some weight. But the grenade tossers of more current politics ... no credibility there IMO. Maybe Yang, IDK, but certainly Cortez and Sanders I wouldn't let manage my 401k, much less trust for any serious policy matter. So if it must be pols, I'd go with a bipartisan assortment of relative unknowns as the lead, because everyone prominent carries a WORLD of negative associations.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nonpartisan sources of authority would probably be more credible. As soon as you say Hannity, I wonder what the underlying uninformed hate agenda is. As soon as you say Paul, I wonder what the underlying honest crazy is. And if you said Pelosi, I'd be slightly less scared, but still frightened, because the only thing I trust about her is that her political enemies are worse. If Obama and Bush agreed on something, that would carry some weight. But the grenade tossers of more current politics ... no credibility there IMO. Maybe Yang, IDK, but certainly Cortez and Sanders I wouldn't let manage my 401k, much less trust for any serious policy matter. So if it must be pols, I'd go with a bipartisan assortment of relative unknowns as the lead, because everyone prominent carries a WORLD of negative associations.

^ the point is to let people coordinate their own cooperative benefits.

If they don't agree on administrative help, the members form their own cooperative team within regions.

The map would look more like this www.medcoops.info
About 1500 members per clinic cooperative, and about 100 clinics organized around a central hospital.

The parties would create jobs for party members to manage their own benefits, and save money, instead of paying tax dollars for govt jobs to administer benefits with greater waste and bureaucracy obstructing choices and access to services while party members aren't paid for their work. This system would set up paid jobs and benefits directly, and be run democratically by those members. They can either do the work themselves so the cooperative program is self sustaining, or they can hire the work out.

By building networks from the grassroots up, people choose which people and providers they want to contract with.

It isn't top down where other people vote in reps you get stuck with by majority rule. People form their own groups, and invite supporters to join. Similar to forming your own church or nonprofit, where you decide which people to put in charge.

 

[justinacolmena]

What do you see as the reasons to move in this direction if we could make the details work? Dangers/problems? I.e., what's the big picture pro/con?

It's the older liberal dudes pandering to young ladies. And conversely the young women who act like lesbians around boys their own age, but then sell themselves quite willingly to monied older men.

 

[ummmmmm]

^ the point is to let people coordinate their own cooperative benefits.

If they don't agree on administrative help, the members form their own cooperative team within regions.

The map would look more like this www.medcoops.info
About 1500 members per clinic cooperative, and about 100 clinics organized around a central hospital.

The parties would create jobs for party members to manage their own benefits, and save money, instead of paying tax dollars for govt jobs to administer benefits with greater waste and bureaucracy obstructing choices and access to services while party members aren't paid for their work. This system would set up paid jobs and benefits directly, and be run democratically by those members. They can either do the work themselves so the cooperative program is self sustaining, or they can hire the work out.

By building networks from the grassroots up, people choose which people and providers they want to contract with.

It isn't top down where other people vote in reps you get stuck with by majority rule. People form their own groups, and invite supporters to join. Similar to forming your own church or nonprofit, where you decide which people to put in charge.

We are a deeply divided nation and way too much right now is about federally imposing one set of views or the other on everyone. I LOVE the idea of getting medical care and insurance out of this partisan madness and letting groups of people make their choices, see the consequences, etc.

 

[ummmmmm]

It's the older liberal dudes pandering to young ladies. And conversely the young women who act like lesbians around boys their own age, but then sell themselves quite willingly to monied older men.

From this post, health care policy seems inextricably tied to women's sexuality to you, and specifically their decisions to have sex with some people but not others. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[emilynghiem]

We are a deeply divided nation and way too much right now is about federally imposing one set of views or the other on everyone. I LOVE the idea of getting medical care and insurance out of this partisan madness and letting groups of people make their choices, see the consequences, etc.

How do we USE the fact groups are divided to motivate the cooperative organizing?

I am thinking to get at least 1-3 people of each Party on board, then approach the State officials or party chairs/leaders saying look at this solution, can you help us pitch it?

Texas and maybe CA has factions already looking into options for secession. If we do this right, and unite BECAUSE we want to avoid conflicts imposed on each other, that might send the right message. And use divided groups as a strength not a weakness.

What region/party do you have those kind of one on one connections with?

I have mine where I am.
What about you ummmmmm ?
Any in your district or key people online you would collaborate with?

 

[emilynghiem]

From this post, health care policy seems inextricably tied to women's sexuality to you, and specifically their decisions to have sex with some people but not others. Am I misunderstanding?

justinacolmena ummmmmm
Since diversity of choices, beliefs and relationships are as unique as each person, why get govt involved at all in determining what is discrimination by whom against whom?

Why not treat all social policies and beliefs as up to individuals to represent for themselves?

If people do not have a religious affiliation, could other nonprofits, schools or party structures help represent and serve these interests Individually. Like how LGBT advocacy wants inclusion on each person's own unique terms. Why not democratize all districts to manage diversity locally, instead of going the opposite direction trying to mandate "one policy fits all" through govt. Isn't that backwards???

 

[ummmmmm]

How do we USE the fact groups are divided to motivate the cooperative organizing?

I am thinking to get at least 1-3 people of each Party on board, then approach the State officials or party chairs/leaders saying look at this solution, can you help us pitch it?

Texas and maybe CA has factions already looking into options for secession. If we do this right, and unite BECAUSE we want to avoid conflicts imposed on each other, that might send the right message. And use divided groups as a strength not a weakness.

What region/party do you have those kind of one on one connections with?

I have mine where I am.
What about you ummmmmm ?
Any in your district or key people online you would collaborate with?

How do we USE the fact groups are divided to motivate the cooperative organizing?

I am thinking to get at least 1-3 people of each Party on board, then approach the State officials or party chairs/leaders saying look at this solution, can you help us pitch it?

Texas and maybe CA has factions already looking into options for secession. If we do this right, and unite BECAUSE we want to avoid conflicts imposed on each other, that might send the right message. And use divided groups as a strength not a weakness.

What region/party do you have those kind of one on one connections with?

I have mine where I am.
What about you ummmmmm ?
Any in your district or key people online you would collaborate with?

Eek, this is getting into real world. So ...

(1) At first blush, I doubt preventing division is the right selling point. On the California side, there is no interest in making peace with Texas -- just IMO of course -- most of CA would be more than happy breaking off and leaving southern states to their confederate fates, Texas most of all; I assume Texas feels the same toward California; these are like enemy nations that are both prideful and ready to call the other's bluff, not hoping to make a treaty to prevent conflict;

(2) Even for those of us who prefer (and I am one of those people) for the union to find a way and muddle through, I think sensible policy choices is a bigger motivating factor than preserving the union. But I don't know how to get a foothold in the current political environment ...

... Simplifying, if I am a random Californian, why do I care about preserving the union in order to coddle the south in their refusal to deal with reality? E.g., Texas can be an undeveloped, anti-evolution, anti-vaxx backwater, they can dig their own grave in history, but what do I care if they are that deliberately dumb? I'm certainly not going to fight with them to try to force them to join the modern world for their own good (much less fight with the even more primitive states in their confederacy of ignorance to try to protect them from their even more uninformed views). We in CA create wealth constantly, invent technology, and follow science; what can we learn from that deliberately uninformed confederacy or gain from making concessions to their backward ways?

So *IMO* it needs to be based on how different policies will help people on the left (in this example) get better outcomes, or perhaps more dependable ones (that are not dependent on which party wins the white house). It needs to be based on some upside other than keeping us married to the Texans, because we're really really not trying to stay married to the Texans.

 

[emilynghiem]

Eek, this is getting into real world. So ...

(1) At first blush, I doubt preventing division is the right selling point. On the California side, there is no interest in making peace with Texas -- just IMO of course -- most of CA would be more than happy breaking off and leaving southern states to their confederate fates, Texas most of all; I assume Texas feels the same toward California; these are like enemy nations that are both prideful and ready to call the other's bluff, not hoping to make a treaty to prevent conflict;

(2) Even for those of us who prefer (and I am one of those people) for the union to find a way and muddle through, I think sensible policy choices is a bigger motivating factor than preserving the union. But I don't know how to get a foothold in the current political environment ...

... Simplifying, if I am a random Californian, why do I care about preserving the union in order to coddle the south in their refusal to deal with reality? E.g., Texas can be an undeveloped, anti-evolution, anti-vaxx backwater, they can dig their own grave in history, but what do I care if they are that deliberately dumb? I'm certainly not going to fight with them to try to force them to join the modern world for their own good (much less fight with the even more primitive states in their confederacy of ignorance to try to protect them from their even more uninformed views). We in CA create wealth constantly, invent technology, and follow science; what can we learn from that deliberately uninformed confederacy or gain from making concessions to their backward ways?

So *IMO* it needs to be based on how different policies will help people on the left (in this example) get better outcomes, or perhaps more dependable ones (that are not dependent on which party wins the white house). It needs to be based on some upside other than keeping us married to the Texans, because we're really really not trying to stay married to the Texans.

Hi ummmmmm
A. More people and politics in Texas are concerned about keeping the LIBERAL politics part about "depending on govt and taxes" to fund and run social programs OUT of govt and NOT have CA/NY type govt take over. The solutions are better coming from people independently, not depending on govt to manage them.

So if you already agree that people need to invest in science and innovations, that's where we agree.

The problem is mainly between the two ideological schools of thought: whether this innovation is helped by maximizing liberty of the people to invest directly and reduce dependence on govt, or is more effective by paying more taxes into govt and using that as the means of orchestrating more of the programs.

B. Also what do you think of the idea of reparations for environmental damages and restoration of the environment and economy by creating a reserve system in each state to finance jobs and education without raising taxes?

Just assess the TRUE cost to taxpayers of crime and corruption, including the costs of restoring the environment and maintaining the valuable natural resources, and hold the value of the educational research, training and work as part of the land value to hold as collateral on the debts, and bank against that to support state currency and credit to pay for sustainable jobs and education?

This would be a combination of independent currency and cooperative banking, and political/financial restitution for crime and corruption otherwise costing billions per state to taxpayers.

How about creating a credit system that charges debts back to the wrongdoers instead of punishing law abiding taxpayers for the damages caused by other people?

Cc: danielpalos

 

[ummmmmm]

Hi ummmmmm
A. More people and politics in Texas are concerned about keeping the LIBERAL politics part about "depending on govt and taxes" to fund and run social programs OUT of govt and NOT have CA/NY type govt take over. The solutions are better coming from people independently, not depending on govt to manage them.

So if you already agree that people need to invest in science and innovations, that's where we agree.

The problem is mainly between the two ideological schools of thought: whether this innovation is helped by maximizing liberty of the people to invest directly and reduce dependence on govt, or is more effective by paying more taxes into govt and using that as the means of orchestrating more of the programs.

B. Also what do you think of the idea of reparations for environmental damages and restoration of the environment and economy by creating a reserve system in each state to finance jobs and education without raising taxes?

Just assess the TRUE cost to taxpayers of crime and corruption, including the costs of restoring the environment and maintaining the valuable natural resources, and hold the value of the educational research, training and work as part of the land value to hold as collateral on the debts, and bank against that to support state currency and credit to pay for sustainable jobs and education?

This would be a combination of independent currency and cooperative banking, and political/financial restitution for crime and corruption otherwise costing billions per state to taxpayers.

How about creating a credit system that charges debts back to the wrongdoers instead of punishing law abiding taxpayers for the damages caused by other people?

Cc: danielpalos

On A, I absolutely agree that (as best I can tell) many Texans have no desire at all to follow California's model. Not sure how long that group remains a majority (if it still is) or how long it can stay in power, but regardless, there are massive and honestly felt ideological differences.

I *think* we agree on more than just innovation. I would like any system that allows us to get away from winner-take-all and allow competing versions of healthcare to coexist. To simplify, it seems like there *has* to be some way to let liberals pass programs they alone pay for and they alone can participate in, and conservatives pass alternative programs more in line with their preferences that they alone pay for and they alone participate in. We don't all have to agree, and we don't have to fight each other to see which side gets to dictate its preferences to the other -- get rid of every such source of tension possible by giving multiple choices.

On B, yes, anything that makes wrongdoers pay for the harm they do, I love. That includes pollution externalities -- it doesn't even have to be criminal, just charge companies for the costs of polluting, so that the price of goods reflects their actual cost to society, and industry has an incentive to seek out less polluting approaches (rather than now where they just seek out better lobbyists). Any such tax raises funds far more usefully than taxing, e.g., earned income, because of the beneficial incentives it creates (vs. taxing income, which creates negative incentives).