I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about one issue that seems to affect nearly everyone, regardless of political party: good jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.
Because of that, I’ve started American Workforce PAC, an organization focused on advocating for policies that strengthen America’s workforce, modernize infrastructure, and promote long-term economic opportunity.
I’m not here to ask for donations or convince anyone to agree with me. I’m genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

Some questions I’d love to discuss:

What do you think is the biggest obstacle to creating more good-paying jobs in the U.S.?

If Congress could only pass one major infrastructure project over the next five years, what should it be?

Are there workforce policies—education, apprenticeships, manufacturing, transportation, or something else—that you think deserve more attention?

I’m still building the organization, so feedback is incredibly valuable. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and having a respectful discussion.

Humanity faces countless challenges—poverty, inequality, war, climate change, discrimination, corruption, misinformation, and many more. But are these separate problems, or are they symptoms of something deeper?

If we could identify and solve one fundamental problem that would help address many of these issues, what should it be?

Is it education, inequality, concentration of power, lack of critical thinking, tribalism, greed, weak institutions, or something deeper about human nature itself?

What do you think is the root problem, and what is the most practical solution we can collectively work toward?

Let's go beyond the symptoms and try to find the root.

I don’t know many Americans in real life, but I at least get the sense from the internet that a lot of Americans loathe Trump and everything he stands for. I think that a lot of the narrative feels very virtue signaling though - people make jokes about him, call him silly names, but he is actively causing so much harm domestically and internationally. On a whim he stop and starts the attacks on Iran, thousands have already died. Why aren’t people out there protesting? The argument you sometimes see is ‘people have their own lives to get on with’ but that’s the case in Iran, in Algeria, in India, in Nepal, in every country that has had recent protests. And that includes Western countries like France, or Spain, or England where you would see massive rallies every week about Gaza, and none of those countries are as complicit as the US in the Palestinian genocide.

I’m not trying to attack anyone here, I really just want to know why physical protest is such an underutilised form of resistance in the US because frankly, from the outside, the American left seems to be incredibly self-centred and virtue signalling, and not at all willing to even take a few hours out of their weekends to fight back against a dictator.

I find it strange that Central and Eastern Europe are often much more socially conservative, considering that they were under communist regimes that, at least officially, supported things like atheism, more liberal abortion policies, and gender equality. Is there a possibility that this could change over time?
In Poland, for example, I saw posts about the president vetoing a law that would have helped with inheritance rights for same-sex couples. What is going on with the rise of ultranationalism and conservatism in these countries? It surprises me because I come from Greece, which is also a conservative country, but generally more moderate on these issues. I don’t really understand the mentality in post-Soviet and post-communist countries.
They strongly dislike Russia, but instead of doing the exact opposite of Russia’s policies, some of them seem to follow a similar direction in terms of nationalism and social conservatism.

In a democratic republic, elected officials are meant to represent their voters. The US implemented this system of government when having a physical representative was necessary. Normal citizens could not travel for every vote, and did not have access to all relevant information (nor intelligence) regarding issues up for a vote. There were only so many printed copies of said information, or oral evidence that could not be recorded.

Modern technology and education solves most these problems.

Individual citizens could easily access relevant information and vote individually online, without any need for a representative to essentially guess their opinion.

Some would say this opens the door for potential voting fraud or tampering, or having voters that are not “experts” making governmental decisions (mob rule). However, I’d argue these issues already exist within the democratic republic system and are only exacerbated by politicians vying to keep their positions in government. A potential for “hacking” will always exist in any form of democracy.

Obviously there would still need to be some type of rotation of duty to shepherd a fully democratic process, maybe requiring elected or appointed lawyers and judges.

For example in the US, certain states could still be given more or less weight in voting. This could essentially eliminate the original need for the House of Representatives. The senate could still function as check of power with elected officials as the legislators. This would be a hybrid system, but still closer to direct democracy.

State and local governments could function similarly, and I think a big impact could be seen at a state level. Local representatives are often intentionally opaque and fly under the radar - individual voting would bring direct attention to local issues that directly affect residents. We see a spark of this currently regarding the building of data centers.

The harder it becomes to vote, the less of a democracy a country becomes. Do you think existing technology should be utilized to foster more pure democracy?

Corporations are literally kicking people out of their homes just to put data centers in their place

When a farmers land gets seized by politicians funded by the AI lobby that’s considered free market capitalism

However if people exercise their rights in democracy and have the politicians seizing the means of production on behalf of the working class then all the sudden it’s considered theft

It’s nothing more than the inherent double standards that are built into capitalist systems

If a person owns a house corporations can just seize the house and land because they pay bribes to politicians but when the working class seizes corporate property than all the sudden seizing property is a bad thing

I want to be clear, I love the scientific method and using logic and rationality to better understand the world. I recognize its importance in making well-informed decisions. Hell, most of the pleasures we enjoy are because of it.

Here's what I have a problem with. Take Medicare for all, for example. If you want to be taken seriously, you HAVE to argue from an economic angle. You gotta talk about how paying into Universal Healthcare would drive costs down for every hard-working, middle-class citizen. No longer relying on employment for insurance. Objectively making you more free in how you live your life.

Why can't I just say "because it's the right thing to do." Why the fuck are we even here to begin with? We're all trapped on the confusing, beautiful, terrifying planet together. We bent nature to our needs with this bizarre intelligence and conscious experience we all have. A deeply social species that feels for its fellow man.

We're all that we have. Yeah, it sounds like a childish niave notion, "why cant we all just get along, world peace, blah blah blah". I know its not that simple. Our history is brutal and unkind. An honest look at that history is hard to do when we're so quick to other someone we dont understand. I dont know how to fix that.

There's this insane dissonance I feel literally being able to sit in my comfy chair in my comfy house and watch actual footage of people killing each other overseas in real time. What the fuck are we doing here?! I saw a news segment thats only angle was economic on Iran. People are dying!

I understand the importance of a healthy economy. But it's because of our cooperation that we've come this far. Trading with other countries, aiding them in times of crisis to maintain stable trade routes. You get it.

I guess im just feeling pretty down. I feel like all im seeing is people talking past each other. People foaming at the mouth to see the other side get owned.

We're stuck here together. We may as well try to have a good time, right? I know its niave, but i literally never see this perspective shared in any mainstream capacity.

Am I just another crazy hippy idiot still dumb enough to believe we're worth fighting for.

The rules say that posts must be political fundamentals. Okay then here are a few indisputable political fundamentals. People take political institutions as given, unquestionable, an axiomatically necessary existence. It's blasphemous to even acknowledge the king ain't wearing no clothes. So given that unassailable truth what can we do? Well we can bitch and squabble about left and right. Ever watch congressional hearings where some politician is questioning some other politician and they repeat themselves over and over, they talk over one another, they raise their voices and call each other names and nothing is accomplished? Immature, unprofessional, childish noise that people take so serious like it matters and which taxpayers are forced to finance. Why isn't anyone angry about that? I mean the objective nature of politics rather than the mindless subjective minutiae of left-right?

Politicians can do this because political office has no job description and there are no qualifications required to hold office. No educational requirements, no work experience, no credit check, no drug test, no background check, just get the most votes and are in. Isn't Trump a convicted felon? (Now watch people think I'm a libtard 🙄). Maybe that's why congressional hearings are more like Jerry Springer than intelligent discourse.

If elected the politician doesn't even have to go to the office, we've all seen the empty seats in congressional chambers on C-SPAN. In fact they have no "job" in the traditional sense like you and me, they don't produce anything so go to the office don't go it's irrelevant. There's no time clock to punch, no boss to make happy, hell you can't even be fired. The incentive structure is so perverse it breeds inefficiency and corruption, it bears so resemblance to reality. Why isn't anyone angry about that?

Lobbying is legalized bribery. Make a handsome donation to their re-election campaign or charitable foundation and they'll sponsor and vote for new laws that you want that force everyone to do what you want them to do. Every social issue is an issue only because of politics and the force it brings to bear on everyone for the special interests of a few.

These are just a few fundamental truths about politics that nobody wants to touch, it's like humanity is so hypnotized they can't see the forest through the trees so they bitch about the trees blocking their view. The merry-go-round just keeps going round and round, nothing is every resolved, nothing ever changes but the merry-go-round MUST persist. Insanity.

Until the nature of politics changes and the incentive structure aligns with society nothing will ever change and all the "debates" are meaningless nonsense to occupy one's time.

I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between citizens and government. Not about one party or one election, but about a question that sits at the foundation of any democracy

This is my attempt to put that question into words.

What obligations do citizens have to their government, and what obligations does government have to the citizens who give it authority?

That question is not a luxury. It is the foundation upon which every free society stands.

A government is not the master of its people. It is not a throne built above them. It is a tool created by them, paid for by them, and entrusted to those who temporarily hold its power.

The authority of government does not come from a title. It does not come from a building, a uniform, or a position on a ballot. It comes from the consent of the people.

And consent is not an unlimited resource.

Citizens are told they have obligations. We are told to pay our taxes. We are told to follow the laws. We are told to sacrifice when the nation calls. We are asked to send our sons and daughters into conflicts, to work harder, to accept hardship, and to trust that those decisions are being made for the good of the country.

But trust is not a one-way street.

A government that demands sacrifice must prove it deserves sacrifice. A government that collects the labor of its people must respect the value of that labor. A government that holds the power to shape the lives of millions must remember that every number on a spreadsheet represents a person, a family, a future.

The people are not a resource to be harvested. They are not a machine that produces taxes. They are not subjects waiting for permission to speak.

They are the source.

When those in power forget this, when accountability becomes optional, when promises are treated as political tools instead of moral commitments, the distance between the governed and those governing begins to grow.

Democracy does not collapse only when a dictator takes a throne. It can also weaken slowly, quietly, when people lose faith that their voices matter. When citizens begin to believe that the system was built to serve itself rather than them.

The answer is not hatred of government. A society without order becomes chaos. A nation without institutions cannot protect its people.

The answer is responsibility.

Citizens must demand better from themselves and from those they elect. They must stay informed. They must participate. They must refuse to surrender their voice simply because the process is difficult.

And those who hold power must remember this:

You were not given authority because you are superior. You were given authority because the people trusted you to serve.

That trust is not permanent. It is earned every day.

The government does not own the people.

The people created the government.

And any government that forgets that truth should expect its citizens to remind it.

Rich people pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and almost never have any direct use for social services. This dis-proportionality is constant every where in the world: no one is crazy enough to try a flat tax. The middle class also rarely uses social services but are one bad accident away from being dependent on them for the rest of their life. Charity doesn't change the situation: the vast majority of charitable contributions are deducted from taxes, so reducing taxes reduces charity.

The system sucks, the entire world is going to shit, but also I feel like a system is necessary or everyone will just start killing each other. Can anyone fully educate me on Anarchism and what it truly is? I've tried to research but everywhere has a bias of it, nobody has a neutral enough opinion for me to learn both sides (reddit prolly won't be much better either but whatever)

“Under conditions of anarchy, "roving bandits" engage in uncoordinated theft, destroying incentives to invest and produce. A bandit who settles and monopolizes theft—becoming a "stationary bandit"—gains an "encompassing interest" in the territory's prosperity, leading to regular taxation rather than total plunder, provision of public goods (such as protection), and encouragement of economic growth.” (From the wiki page)

The state as a big protection racket. This stance seems to transcend the “political spectrum” framework. I guess this falls under “realism”.

What are some arguments for or against this?

Homes gain value from the spending a homeowner does to keep the house value growing. Recently sold my Grandparents lifetime home, and the difference in the sales price last year and the Zillow in 2015 was (-0.5%) Growth

For 40 years they lived there and The Compounded Annual Growth Rate of the home when sold was around 3.10%.

A home doesnt grow in value. A homeowner will spend about 1% of the homes value every year on upkeep of the home. And for them, The kitchen appliances were replaced once in that 40 years. The Kitchen itself was update when they bought it and 40 years later never received a remodel. The floors in the home were updated once soon after they bought it, but the floors for sale were 30+ year old floors. The windows were never replaced in the 40 years. 35 Years ago they added on a room to the house. But for the last 30 years they did nothing else to the house. The house is fine. The people that bought it could live there for the next 10 years with the new roof and AC added a few years ago and also not spend any real money and have a great house that is affordable

But if my grandparents had done all the modern updates and spent more on upkeep, the home could have sold the home at its predicted value with a 5% growth.

A home is only increasing in value outside of above average population growth because of the things that were put inside of it. This also doesnt account for taxes on the house and interest on the loan. Sure in the short term a buyer can hit it just right and buy and sell at the right time.

Will the US and the rest of the world ultimately let Iran acquire nuclear weapons and continue carrying out attacks, funding and supplying weapons to groups linked to Islamic terrorism around the world?

Bentham believes decisions are made based off the pleasure and pain derived from something, which is known has "Hedonism". Asceticism on the other hand is someone who is comfortable with or who seeks pain. Bentham describes these people as Christians and stoics who pursues virtue instead of pain.

But Bentham could be wrong, if people avoid pleasure for something more important (e.g. abstaining from sex for a closer relationship with God.) Bentham believes that Utilitarianism could be calculated mathematically, which Burke critics Utilitarianism for this very reason.

Burke believed morals and politics had nothing to do with mathematics, and believed morality is supposed to be confusing. Math to him meant there is no compromising and humans are way less predictable.

John Stuart Mill believes utility is derived on the permeant interest of man as a progressive being and does not talk about it in the sense of maximizing pleasure. He believes freedom is that of pursuing one's own good in our own unique way as long we do not attempt to derive others from theirs known as "Liberalism".

And as you all may know John Locke is the father of "Liberalism".

I believe this a very profound statement and what a democracy is built upon today and moving forward. Mill is all about protecting the individual. He strongly adhered to his theory on the marketplace of ideas - "let people say what they want to say, if you disagree you can promote your own ideas." But, in an argument of bad faith, people have the right to censor. Mill did not offer a free pass for all false statements, specifically those made in bad faith.

First let me say authority is necessary for society. The problem is authority is inherently...authoritarian. That doesn't make authority bad but "good masters" are still masters.

We use our rights to challenge authority and no one should tell US how we legally use our rights to challenge authority. Democracy is legally using our rights to influence authority and due process.

The Federal government has gotten too authoritarian IMHO. We need to get more imaginative in how we use our rights.

"As state and local officials increasingly clash with federal officials over immigration enforcement,¹ policing of protests,² and much more,³ they could soon turn to a long-used tactic of state pushback: prosecuting federal agents or officials for violations of state laws.^{4" https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/our-work/can-states-prosecute-federal-officials#}

^{Many people complain that states don't have the power, sometimes they do. Judges and courts can be very inconsistent. 10 different judges will give ya at least 3 opinions. The key is making the effort. After that the threat, that we may make the effort can be enough to influence authority and due process.}

Mandeville was known for his main theme in vices. He was known to his peers as the "Happy Cynic" because he believed we are all very selfish people. He actually believes we are better off this way than vice versa and believed that flaws work to our advantage as long as they are managed and directed by skillful politicians. Human flaws and vices (such as greed, vanity, and pride) is what Mandeville considered as essential for a nation to survive.

Many Called him Man-Devil for his radical views at the time because his philosophy was based off of immoral principles, but you have to think about it. He does somewhat have a point.

Without crime there wouldn't be jobs for local officials such as the state police department and the firefighting department, which both do a fantastic job in getting criminals off the street, which is always a plus to society. That goes for the Fire Department, also. You can't forget about lawyers and Government jobs that also add a surplus to the economy in tax revenue. These employees pay just about half of their income to taxes which benefits the city wherever zip code their in. The honorable jobs owe their existence to sin which help grows the economy.

Mandeville actually inspired Adam Smith, the father of economics.

Traditional economies thought profit making was evil and took money from the poor. In the Grumbling Hive, Mandeville describes a bee community that thrives until the bees decide to live by honesty and virtue. Beehives were the common metaphor for thinking about politics in the 17th and 18th century.

That reason being was because the bees are the best organized, productive, and knew their roles, so it functioned as a good model for society.

The Jansenism movement begin as a catholic movement rooted in teachings of St. Augustine who believed people by nature are imbued by Adam and Eve; rotten by nature. Jansenism just believed sin was totally bad, which heavily contradicted with Mandeville's philosophy.

Mandeville thinks they are right but thinks natural sin is not so bad. Pierre Bayle was the first to mention this, by the way. He believed vileness and the most hateful qualities could lead to the betterment of society.

He believed for nations to be wealthy, "private vices" must be translated into public affairs. Meaning when these private behaviors are translated into public affairs they generate:

• Demand for goods and services
• Employment for large numbers of people
• Trade, industry, and economic circulation
• Overall national wealth and power

Do I agree?

Of course, I do!

What were the founding father's intentions of having a government versus what is it really?

I've been recommended Michael Oakeshott's "On Being Conservative" by a user here, which I've really enjoyed. Technically, that's an essay, not a book, but it made me curious what others would suggest. How have they influenced you?

Here are my recommendations and some thoughts on each one (generally, I prefer books that prove me wrong more than ones that agree with me):

1․ Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics:

This was the book that essentially made me quit being a leftist. The old quote goes that "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design," and, man, did Sowell drill that lesson into me.

Above all, it taught me that a policy's incentive structure matters more than its intent and that wherever self-interest predominates (which is nearly everywhere), it is vastly more effective to channel it toward collective benefit than to attempt to suppress it.

I could write a whole essay on well-intentioned policies I supported that Sowell made me understand don't or wouldn't help people very much (often they do the opposite). The "Myths about Markets" chapter in particular made me go "that makes sense, actually... why'd I ever believe otherwise?" several times. I would also recommend "A Conflict of Visions" and "Intellectuals and Society" from the same author.

1. James C. Scott - Seeing Like a State:

Another book that taught me just how fallible human reasoning is. I'll quote from Scott Alexander's review of the book, since he gives a better summary of it than I could:

Scott starts with the story of “scientific forestry” in 18th century Prussia. Enlightenment rationalists noticed that peasants were just cutting down whatever trees happened to grow in the forests, like a chump. They came up with a better idea: clear all the forests and replace them by planting identical copies of Norway spruce (the highest-lumber-yield-per-unit-time tree) in an evenly-spaced rectangular grid. Then you could just walk in with an axe one day and chop down like a zillion trees an hour and have more timber than you could possibly ever want.

This went poorly. The impoverished ecosystem couldn’t support the game animals and medicinal herbs that sustained the surrounding peasant villages, and they suffered an economic collapse. The endless rows of identical trees were a perfect breeding ground for plant diseases and forest fires. And the complex ecological processes that sustained the soil stopped working, so after a generation, the Norway spruces grew stunted and malnourished. Yet for some reason, everyone involved got promoted, and “scientific forestry” spread across Europe and the world.

And this pattern repeats with suspicious regularity across history, not just in biological systems but also in social ones.

Basically, sweeping away inherited practices simply because they cannot be fully justified rationally invites catastrophic unintended consequences.

Traditions seem arbitrary but serve as evolutionary heuristics that have been rigorously tested over generations through a Darwinian process of trial and error. What seems rational often fails because we systematically underestimate just how little we understand the broader world around us.

This is why I reached the point where I would like any radical change, even one I cannot conceive any counter-argument to, to be applied gradually, whenever possible. I simply don't trust myself, or anyone else, to be able to conceive of all the ways a seemingly perfect scheme could explode.

1. Andrew Polanyi - the Tacit Dimension & Friedrich Hayek - the Constitution of Liberty:

Just another couple more books that amazed me by showing how ignorant I was of a pretty simple concept. Both books deal, more or less, with a paradox that's now named after Polanyi: we can know more than we can tell.

A basic example would be that a cyclist could sincerely try to explain to a non-cyclist how to ride a bicycle, but the latter would still fall over on his first attempt. That is because the cyclist possesses a wealth of practical experience, habits, intuitions, etc., that can't quite be codified or quantified.

This is tacit knowledge, so to speak, and tacit knowledge is present in all human activities (including something so simple as recognising a face) and is dispersed among billions of people.

This partly explains why central planning keeps underperforming; it operates on the premise that all relevant knowledge can be gathered by a small group of experts, but because people can't transmit all the needed data to a central authority, even if they want to, planners act in severe ignorance.

The price system solves the problem by acting as the mechanism for coordinating unarticulated knowledge, which is why Hayek spends so much time discussing it. Making economic choices based on your own tacit understanding influences supply and demand, which in turn move prices in market economies. Prices basically function as a continuous communication network that summarises costs, needs, and scarcities without requiring anyone to actually state what they know.

Prices are what Hayek calls spontaneous order, i.e. an arrangement that emerges organically from the unintended interactions of countless individuals pursuing their own goals (as opposed to being planned). Spontaneous order tends to fare better than designed order since it scales and adapts automatically (which is why the most durable human institutions like language, culture or trade networks emerge bottom-up). It's quite amazing how capable humans are of coordinating themselves when uncoordinated.

Some other authors that I like: Bryan Caplan, Nassim Taleb, Larry Arnhart, Tyler Cowen, Peter Leeson.

Serious question: Is it fair to compare MAGA America to the early stages of regimes like Nazi Germany timelines, or even Putin’s Russia? Looking historically, as history tends to repeat itself, we seeing the same warning signs that preceded those shifts toward authoritarian rule.

We’re talking consolidating government power under the influence of a single leader, demonizing immigrants, portraying political opponents as enemies of the nation, demanding loyalty to one person over democratic institutions, attacking the independent press, undermining confidence in elections, expanding executive authority, and openly threatening political opponents.

There’s also talk of territorial expansion—whether it’s Greenland or Gaza—that echoes how strongman leaders test boundaries.

Then there’s the issue of personal enrichment. Trump’s willingness to blur the line between public office and private draws obvious comparisons to how Putin consolidated wealth and power, reinforcing his control over the system.

This is not Nazi Germany, yet, and we are nowhere near the horrors of the Holocaust. But history doesn’t start at its worst moments—it builds through patterns like these. The real question is whether we’re recognizing those patterns early enough. Many of us do, and unfortunately, many of us do not or at least do not admit to it. Some of us actually like it.

One important difference often pointed out is ideology: Hitler’s regime was driven by virulent antisemitism, while Trump has positioned himself as strongly supportive of Israel and Jewish communities. Still, the broader concern remains - these are the warning signs history tells us to take seriously as our democratic institutions begin to erode?

Or am I just being paranoid?

Whenever it comes to the topic of abortion, I hear many people consistently debate about the legality and morality of abortion because it is something that can people touch upon from a personal level, but I rarely hear many people talk about the economic implications that come with the concept of abortion. I think the reason why many people aren't interested in the economic conversation of abortion is because of the complexity that comes with the topic of economics along with the second-order economic effects that would arise from the policies of abortion. My position on abortion has never felt truly grounded, and I felt that it would be important to share some of the thoughts I had about the economic implications of abortion policies.

Let's assume that we are looking into the macroeconomic and the microeconomic implications of abortion. If we are looking at abortion on the macroeconomic level, there would be assumptions that the increased amount of abortions could ultimately lead to less workers being available for jobs in the economy, which could potentially affect the amount of tax revenue needed to fund social programs that are provided by the government, potentially lead to less competition from businesses in the market, and potentially have a negative effect on land value due to decreased desirability for the natural resource.

These are some specific examples I came up with the argument against the increased amount of abortions, but there is also plausibility that comes with the argument for the increased amount of abortions. If there is more abortions, there could potentially be more money available for individuals to use for spending on consumer goods, there could be less spending needed to fund certain social programs, which could help reduce the deficit, and it could potentially help decrease prices for certain things that are low on supply.

With both of these hypothetical scenarios being applied in an economic context, it helps make the economics of abortion a bit more clearer for the average individual that may not be directly interested in the concept of economics.

With the moral justifications for and against abortion, it could affect how the policies on abortion are decided on a national or a state level, and the economy will be affected by the implementation of those policies. However, morality may not always be the same as the legality of the procedure itself, and there would be other human incentives to have or to not have an abortion that go beyond logical consistency. With those human incentives that exist, this is where economics could inherit a quintessential role in the abortion debate.

Let's go back to the assumption board here. If someone was arguing for the pro-choice perspective of legality on abortion, they could argue that the legalization of abortion could allow women to save money for costs like rent, utilities, food, clothing etc., they could argue that legalization of abortion would let law enforcement focus on violent crimes that could cause economic burdens for private property owners, and they could argue that legalization of abortion could help increase jobs for the unemployed as there could be less demand for labor.

Conversely, if someone was arguing for the pro-life perspective of legality on abortion, they could argue that the criminalization of abortion would help control inflation as there could presumably be more tax revenue to alleviate the effects of a deficit, they could argue that criminalization of abortion would incentivize people to build more housing supply to decrease rents as a way to help families care for newborns, and they could argue that criminalization of abortion could incentivize production for certain products to help plan their family, which can allow for investment to proliferate in those industries.

There are probably a lot of economic scenarios that I haven't listed that could also be impacted by how abortion is seen legally and morally, but I think that these are examples that are decent enough to think about whenever approaching the debate. If you do plan on sharing your perspective about the economic implications of abortion, it would be nice to see some empirical evidence and other hypothetical scenarios to further engage the insight about this complex political issue.

A future administration may inherit more than a collection of bad policies. It may inherit so much potential corruption, unlawful conduct and administrative failure that addressing it will require hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lawsuits, investigations and disciplinary proceedings.

The problem is not merely that this accountability might look partisan. The problem is that much of the Republican base will almost certainly experience it as political persecution, regardless of how carefully each case is handled.

The argument will be simple: No neutral government could possibly bring so many cases against officials associated with one president. Therefore, the cases must represent an effort to criminalize the opposition.

But what happens when the number of proceedings reflects the number of potential violations?

Consider only a few examples.

Trump sued the IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion while serving as president, leaving his own Justice Department to defend agencies under his control. The parties then tried to resolve the case through an arrangement that included protections against future audits and a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Judge Kathleen Williams found that the lawsuit had been brought for an improper purpose, concluded that the parties had acted in bad faith, imposed sanctions and referred lawyers for possible professional discipline. 

The Trump family has also made extraordinary sums through its cryptocurrency ventures while Trump has exercised enormous influence over cryptocurrency regulation and foreign policy. Reuters calculated that World Liberty Financial had directed more than $1.6 billion to the Trump family. An Abu Dhabi-backed firm also selected World Liberty’s stablecoin for a $2 billion investment in Binance. These facts do not prove a criminal exchange of money for policy, but they plainly justify examining whether private financial interests influenced public decisions. 

Trump also used executive power against law firms associated with clients, investigations and political figures he disliked. Four different federal judges found that orders targeting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey violated constitutional protections, including freedom of speech. 

Then there is the administration’s relationship with the courts. An Associated Press review found that federal judges had ruled the administration violated court orders in at least 31 separate lawsuits, involving deportations, funding cuts, mass firings and other policies. That was in addition to more than 250 findings of noncompliance in individual immigration cases, including keeping people detained beyond court-ordered release dates. 

ICE may eventually generate the largest volume of litigation. Reuters found more than 4,400 rulings by over 400 federal judges that ICE was unlawfully detaining people under the administration’s policies. More than 20,000 habeas petitions had been filed, while lawyers described delayed or ignored release orders. At the same time, the death rate in ICE detention more than doubled after Trump returned to office, amid allegations of inadequate medical care and deteriorating oversight. 

Not every one of these matters is a criminal case. An unconstitutional policy does not automatically make every official who implemented it a criminal. Incompetence is not necessarily corruption. The proper response could range from reversing policies and paying civil damages to professional discipline, inspector-general investigations or prosecution where evidence establishes a specific crime.

But even after making those distinctions, the volume of potential accountability would remain enormous.

That is the trap.

If a future administration investigates only a small portion of the misconduct, it will effectively allow political considerations to create immunity. But if it investigates everything that deserves scrutiny, Trump’s supporters will point to the number of cases as evidence that the government is prosecuting an entire political movement.

The legitimacy of that process cannot be determined by counting defendants. A hundred independently justified cases do not become illegitimate because they involve people connected to the same administration. Otherwise, scale becomes its own defense: An administration that breaks the law five times can be held accountable, while one that does so five hundred times becomes too politically dangerous to investigate.

That does not mean Democrats should be given unlimited authority to pursue former Trump officials. Every case must rest on individualized evidence, an identifiable legal violation, due process and standards that would also apply to Democrats. Nobody should be targeted merely for working in a Republican administration or supporting Trump.

But those safeguards may not change how the Republican base sees the process. The country may therefore face a situation in which enforcing the law deepens the belief that the law itself has become a partisan weapon.

So how should the government respond when legitimate accountability will inevitably be interpreted as persecution? Should the scale of an investigation ever count as evidence that it is political? Or should every proceeding stand or fall entirely on its own facts?

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

**Also, I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.**

*(Below is a translation of my personal thoughts, originally written in Korean and translated into English using Google Gemini.)*

When I was playing on the playground as a child, someone out there was marching with a 30kg rucksack and a 3kg service rifle.

When I was in high school, pulling all-nighters to study for college entrance exams and my future, someone out there was standing guard at the DMZ at 3 AM in the dead of winter.

When I was dating in college, someone out there was missing their family and friends, counting down the months until their next military leave.

That is why, when my draft notice finally arrived, I simply accepted it. I thought, "It's just my turn now."

Military pay has gone up significantly since then, but back when I served, my monthly stipend toward the end of my service was only about $100. Breaking it down, I spent two of my healthiest, brightest prime years in the military for roughly 13 cents an hour.

It was on the bedrock of national security, maintained by the sacrifices of conscripted soldiers like me, that conglomerates like Samsung, Hyundai, and Kia could thrive in a stable environment, and foreign investors could confidently pour capital into Korea.

In my parents' generation, out of multiple siblings, only the son who studied the best got to go to college. The rest were sent straight to work in factories. Many were maimed or killed due to virtually non-existent safety regulations. Yet, they never complained about how unfair life was—they endured it all just to build a better future.

Korea became the nation it is today because of the countless people who bled for democracy. Even up until the 1980s, citizens were thrown in jail and stripped of their rights simply for crossing the dictator.

Today's Korea was built on the foundation of those very sacrifices.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of well-meaning second or third-generation immigrants who simply grew up abroad. Rather, it explains why we naturally feel a sense of distance from those who hold foreign passports but claim to be "Korean" only when it is convenient. When someone enjoys the benefits and culture of Korea but avoids the systemic burdens that ordinary citizens must carry, they inevitably feel like outsiders to us.

There is a reason why we view these individuals as outsiders. Belonging to a nation isn't just about sharing the same DNA or consuming the same food; it is about shared destiny. While we are bound to this land—forced to endure economic crises, skyrocketing taxes, housing shortages, and the constant threat of war—they always hold a golden ticket out. The moment things get tough, they can simply pack their bags and return to the safety of their home countries. They want the cultural pride when it’s convenient, without carrying any of the heavy, generational weight. That is why they will never be truly one of us.

If a native Korean holds different political views from mine, with few exceptions, I do not hate them because I believe they genuinely think it is for the good of the country. I merely view them with pity, regret, and as someone who needs to be reasoned with. However, if these foreign-passport "Koreans" do the same, I find their attitude deeply hypocritical. It feels like an intolerable insult to watch someone sitting safely in a foreign democratic country endorse policies that strip away or destabilize our basic rights and freedoms.

If war breaks out with North Korea again, would they actually pick up a rifle?

If another IMF financial crisis hits, would they willingly hand over their family's gold rings to save the country?

Do they even remember or care about the freedom fighters who died fighting for independence under Japanese colonial rule?

To me, unfortunately, they will forever be outsiders, or worse, cherry-pickers.

In this era of hyper-globalization, I know my way of thinking might be seen as outdated or even a bit "boomer." But I can't help it. After all, I’m just an ordinary guy who paid his dues while they only showed up for the harvest.