Cornell West running for president

 Another story I've been kind of ignoring is Cornell West running for president. He's running as part of the peoples' party, which I had positive opinions in 2020, but have since become more "meh" on between fine tuning my ideology and various controversies that seemed to impact it. If I recall, Scott Santens seemed to participate in that convention online, but the party doesn't seem to endorse basic income. If anything they seemed to go in the Bernie direction of having everything but a UBI. 

The peoples' party website only lists 6 positions, and they're short enough for me to react to in their entirety:

Create True Democracy

Clean out government corruption and create a true democracy. Get money out of politics and ban corporate lobbying. Enact term limits in Congress and switch to hand-counted paper ballots.

 

 I mean, cool, but I think Yang's forward party has interesting proposals like ranked choice voting, independent redistricting, and open primaries as well. Heck Yang's 2020 platform had a lot of good ideas too. Don't get me wrong, I like the money out of politics thing, but people seem almost too narrow minded on that when Yang seemed to have a much more robust anti corruption platform in practice. Democracy dollars, forbidding people from becoming lobbyists, and that sort of thing would do wonders for the country. 

Revitalize Our Economy

Guarantee quality education, housing, paid leave, and a living wage to all. Curb inflation, support unions, and expand Social Security.

 Not a lot of details but it covers a lot of my priorities like education, housing, and expanding rights to workers all in two sentences.

Medicare for All

Create a national single-payer health care system. Lower drug prices and abolish medical debt.

 Yeah that's based.

End the Wars

Bring our troops home and invest those trillions of war dollars into American communities.

 I mean i like this on paper, but normally when people suggest this they also wanna stop supporting ukraine and cut the military budget by 50%+ which is dangerous.

Expand Civil Liberties

Guarantee equal rights to all Americans. Restore free speech, protect choice, end the drug war, and abolish mass incarceration.

 All nice priorities.

Protect the Environment

Clean up pollution in our food, water and air. Tackle climate change and shift to regenerative agriculture.

 On climate plans I normally like more details with this. Heck, West's issue is he just announces stances with no intentions to give details. At least Williamson, whatever criticisms I have, has decently robust plans. 

Would I support him in the general?

Eh...given I really dont want trump OR desantis in charge, i really dont plan on protest voting the dems this time. Both of them just represent too much of a threat to our institutions to allow anywhere near the white house, so I will be doing the whole "strategic voting" thing no matter how much I hate it and have to hold my nose for it. 

I also don't think Biden has done a bad job, although I can't really praise him either. He's just...a big pile of "meh." 

I could potentially protest vote if the democrats piss me off again like HRC did in 2016, but I find biden's style of governing slightly less abrasive. 

Also, lets be honest, bog standard progressives impress me less this time since I've more thoroughly researched the differences between my ideology and theirs, and i realize there are a lot of significant differences there, just as there are with the democrats. So I'm just less enthusiastic about these "leftist" candidates stuck on the same old platform. I'd still support them over Biden, but I ain't really particularly motivated to go out of my way to support them, even given democratic party screwery. Because let's face it, without UBI, I wouldnt really be satisfied anyway. Even though I would like to see medicare for all, student debt forgiveness, and stronger worker protections. 

I just dont see this as getting there though. Again, right now, the real world power struggle between the democrats and republicans seems more important than me than litigating doctrinal differences between centrists, progressives, and myself.

You do you if you disagree. Don't think I'm telling you how YOU should vote, but I am explaining my own behavior. I just ain't really feeling this guy. Especially give how limited and detail free his platform is.

He's better than RFK at least. In theory I'd agree with him more than Biden. But let's face it, Williamson is my preferred candidate this time around, full stop.

Trump getting indicted (again)

 So this one is a bit of a blurb. But to go in the other direction with criminal justice, Trump is being indicted again, this time for his withholding of classified documents after he left office. He had these things everywhere, in his bathroom, on a stage in his residence. And unlike Till Lindemann, there's PLENTY of evidence that he committed crimes. Heck the dude was asked nicely for documents back many times and he just intentionally obstructed the process, which is why he was raided last year. 

I say: freaking good. The dude has committed so much crap with January 6th and all I don't care if they nail him for tax fraud at this point. Heck he might still face insurrection charges. Again, if we really wanna nail someone for crimes, and they commit so many of them, then they're gonna be nailed for SOMETHING eventually. But yeah. We would be in jail for far less if it was us. 

As for how this will impact 2024, idk, he's the republican frontrunner by a massive margin atm, and could still theoretically run from jail (Eugene Debs did it). I don't know if his support would change, although it would impact his ability to campaign at least.

As for Trump in jail and being president? Idk I could see him theoretically being under house arrest but I don't know how that would be any different than being surrounded by secret service 24/7 anyway. We'll have to see how this turns out. 

If Trump is knocked out, I'm guessing DeSantis would be the nominee instead, and he's scarier than trump in some respects. More ideologically extreme, and less of a bull in the china shop meaning he might be more effective at maintaining public opinion and getting things done to advance his ideology. What he's done to florida is outright scary. Seriously, screw that guy. I'd almost rather have Trump again than him. I really don't know who is worse.

The importance of rule of law

 So...this has really been bothering me, about the Lindemann thing. The fact that these SJWs seem to not respect the idea of rule of law, and seem to support mob justice. They base their opinions on their critical theories, which talk about power imbalances, blah blah blah, but as I said, those theories, while valid, are a double edged sword. They have a place in discussion, but if you focus SOLELY on them, you start seeing them in everything to the point the ideology becomes a self parody, and you kind of lose sight of other aspects of reality. Social justice ideology is a lens, but it's only a lens, not the most important lens, or the only lens. It gives you one view of the world out of a possibility of many, but it lacks on so many other things.

In sociology, critical theories are subsets of conflict theories, which focus mostly on power imbalances. But, functionalism focuses on WHY things are the way they are and what positive social functions they serve, and that's what I'm going to focus on here.

It is true that rape is an extremely underpunished crime, and that there isn't much evidence in most scenarios, and that in the court of law, rape cases don't hold up and many criminals walk free. But when we consider things like criminal justice systems, we need to focus on two kinds of errors here. Sure, we should consider the possibility that standards of evidence are too strict where we can't lock up actual criminals for actual crimes, but we should also consider what would happen if we made the standards laxer. We could, instead of letting guilty people go free, be locking up tons of innocent people. Any criminal justice system is going to have these kinds of errors both ways. We can totally live in a world in which some people who are guilty walk free, and some who are innocent get locked up. But if we had to choose one, which one is preferable?

Our society is built around the idea that it is better to let guilty people go free, than to lock up innocent people. Our society was the first modern democracy, here in the US, and most of the rest of the "free world" have constitutions that are based on ours, or other ones like ours. I don't think the US constitution is perfect, mind you, it is an over 200 year old document full of flaws and compromises and has many institutions that havent aged well, but the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and the ample rights granted to citizens and suspected criminals one of its hallmark contributions to modern society.

We used to have societies where people were locked up on mere suspicions for crimes. Where we wouldn't give people fair trials. Where we shot first and asked questions later. Where we tortured people for craps and giggles. And...those societies aren't very preferable to live in since they run the risk of an unchecked authoritarian just locking up whomever they wanted and abusing them and violating their established rights as human beings. We decided, no, human beings are entitled to a certain amount of dignity, and certain freedoms, and and certain rights, and that these are good, because the consequences of having such things are good.

It is generally speaking much better to presume innocent until proven guilty, and have standards of evidence as high as "reasonable doubt" in order to prove someone of a crime. It's better for there to be rules and procedures to be followed and that things that break those rules and procedures are inadmissible in court. It's better that we ensure our justice system makes a lot of errors in assuming that guilty people are innocent, than the other way around.

And that's what scares me about SJWs, cancel culture, and this mob justice crap. They literally have the same mindsets as the crazy whacko Trumpers and their fascism at times. Wanting to lock people up for crimes regardless of their guilt (remember their calls to lock up Hillary?), wanting to ruin peoples' life based on mere allegations, rather than waiting for evidence to come in to prove wrongdoing was done.

Everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. it is on the justice system to prove people guilty. And yes, on subjects of rape and sexual assault, maybe our justice system is a bit anemic. But what's the alternative? Throwing people in jail based on no evidence? Mindlessly believing whatever rumors anyone creates? I stand by the idea that allegations require proof, and to quote Christopher Hitchens, I believe that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I also support the institutions doing their job rather than people. These people think they're vigilantes. One of them even compared themselves to Batman. You're not batman. You'll NEVER be batman (r/unexpectedsaoabridged). Seriously vigilante justice, the idea of an angry mob trying to go after someone who has not had their day in court is a dangerous precedent to set. Our entire society was designed to try to avoid the flaws associated with the alternatives to the rule of law, and here these SJWs just don't care and wanna more or less lynch Till because of allegations that are so weak the Lithuanian police aren't even going to pursue them further. 

It scares me that people just dont leave things that are obviously criminal matters to the authorities intended to handle criminals. Then again they dont trust the authorities to get the results they want. Because they're ideological extremists who are narrow minded and focused on spreading their ideology rather than establishing some sense of true justice.

I know it sucks, if someone who is guilty ends up not getting prosecuted. The good news is most offenders are repeat offenders, so if they don't get nailed this time and they're guilty of that kind of behavior, they'll likely get nailed eventually. If Till really does regularly sexually assault people at his concerts and afterparties, something is bound to happen eventually unless he completely changes his behavior. At which point I'd be fine with mere deterrence. The purpose of the justice system shouldnt be first and foremost to punish criminals, but to deter and rehabilitate them. If this experience causes till be to more cautious about his sexuality in the future then that's a positive thing for me.

In defense of Rammstein/Lindemann's art

 So...I'm just going to throw this part out there. As far as the actual accusations against Till Lindemann goes, whatever happens, happens. This is a matter to be settled in a court of law, not the court of public opinion, and let those who can litigate it in a sterile, objective environment do their thing. 

But, as I've said previously, it seems like a lot of the SJW types are targetting Till Lindemann's ART. And that doesn't rub me the wrong way. A lot of times I try to stay neutral on these matters because quite frankly, it's a massive distraction from more important issues, but Rammstein is an important subject for me. It's an obsessive interest of mine, and has been for years, and I'm a pretty die hard fan of the band and Till Lindemann in general. 

And even though I feel like my left wing credentials are coming under assault by basically sounding like an alt righter in defending lindemann, I think it's pretty obvious that I am not. And to explain exactly what I mean, I'm going to dust off my 2021 social justice political compass that I discussed in this article. I am very much part of the "free thinking" "fact don't care about your feelings" part of the left. I hate all would be moralizers who try to censor art or push their political narratives in other peoples' art, trying to decide for others what it and isn't acceptable. 

Rammstein has always been a band that pushes boundaries. Since its inception, its art has been extreme and controversial. Back in the 90s, they were part of this "family values" tour where they sang a song called "buck dich" (bend over) on stage that involved till pulling a dildo out of his pants and spraying the crowd with it. Of course the fundie christian right moralizers will be like WHY I NEVER, and they EVEN GOT ARRESTED HERE IN THE US ONCE for this act. Since then, they've just engaged in more and more controversy, writing songs about rape, cannibalism, real world screwed up events, and stuff like that. 

Honestly, when I was in college, I took an art class, and something I noticed when I came into that class was I was very rigid due to my christian morality at the time. I wouldnt explore a lot of extreme topics, but between that class, and really watching rammstein and internalizing what they were doing, I realized that hey, maybe art is just art, maybe it shouldnt be taken so seriously, and maybe people should have fun with it.

And as I left Christianity, I doubled down on this, realizing how restrictive my morality was, and as I joined the new atheist community, I took offensiveness to the next level. If people wanna draw muhammad let them draw muhammad. if they wanna refer to easter as zombie jesus day, let them. Have fun with this stuff, you only live once (or do you?). 

And with Rammstein, same thing. I mean, I'm not above sending right wingers rammstein videos about abortion or homosexuality to troll them if push comes to shove on those subjects. Because screw their feelings. They wanna be authoritarians to tell people how to live their lives? I don't take too kindly to that crap and that's my way of telling them off. 

You see, this might come as a surprise to the cancel culture whackos, but Rammstein is a left wing band. They explore all kinds of topics with sexuality, and are quite libertarian. They also have a very anti fascist bend looking at songs like Links, Deutschland, and Angst, despite being accused of being nazis constantly by ignorant people. Heck, links is literally dunking on these people. "Oh here's this ahrd core militaristic sounding "nazi" song about how left wing we are". Yeah, they do stuff like that, and I love it. They have a way of pushing their own brand of music and basically leaning into the whole screw your feelings thing, preferring to be subversive and to hit the beehive rather than to avoid hurting peoples' feelings. 

That said, I'm actually a bit disappointed that Rammstein seems to be caving a bit to the cancel culture mob. Apparently they didn't play pussy, a staple of their recent concerts involving a giant metal penis cannon spraying the crowd, because given the recent allegations, it seems like in poor taste. I personally dont think they should have given that up just to appease the woke mob. These left wing authoritarians are just as much of a threat to freedom of speech and expression as the far right, and honestly, I think they should be unceremoniously shown the door in exactly the same way. While not all changes Rammstein seems to be making are bad (apparently they're doing a lot of reforms to his parties or cancelling them altogether, and Till no longer disappears under the stage during deutschland, where he would get frisky with women from the crowd), but yeah, when it comes to them censoring their art for the sake of the crowd, I tend to dislike them. Rammstein has this brand of subversiveness, doing their own thing, and not giving a crap what people think about them, and I don't think they should change that now. Make the material changes needed behind the scenes to avoid future accusations of sexual misconduct, but yeah, their music, their brand shouldnt change. Because if pussy is no longer acceptable to play live, what songs are next? A lot of rammstein's songs are sexually charged, and a lot of them cover touchy topics like rape, BDSM, and other extreme themes. A lot of those songs are arguably just as if not less acceptable to play. 

And then you have till's side gig, with songs and music videos portraying himself as a serial sexual abuser. Even at the time, a lot of the community, well familiar with rammstein and lindemann's stuff was going "wtf Till". But, it was assumed to be fictional, and people eventually came around to it, despite how extreme it was, and despite even people like me showing some level of discomfort with the subject matters. Still, should he be forced to censor himself? No. As long as it's all in good fun, who cares?

Now, being accused of assault does change those songs' meanings to some degree. It kind of blurs the distinction between fiction and reality to some extent, and to some extent those kinds of songs seem distasteful. Still, should the art stand? Yes. Because it's art. And art has a right to be subversive and offensive. 

To be fair, Till himself has been approaching it with the same subversive style he always does. I know he invited the press to one afterparty and told them to look around and "see that everyone is being drugged and raped", and in the most recent concert, he kind of made a drinking motion during one line of a song that was taken as a reference to the whole thing.

I know some people will see this as tasteless, but given my screw your feelings mindset, i find it hilarious. I mean, imagine if you're innocent and people make up crazy stories about you, and then you just start mocking them openly. I think that's fair game and an appropriate response to such allegations if you're innocent. I mean, people are peeing in your cornflakes, making up these elaborate horror stories of stuff done behind the scenes, and if you're the kind of subversive frontman who tends to lean into controversy rather than shy away from it, i think that's an appropriate response. I even think it's funny.

The only way such a thing would be in bad taste is if he's actually guilty. And that's for the courts to decide, not public opinion or the media. Like really, screw the pearl clutchers, if he has nothing to hide, then he is fully within his right to mock the accusations for what they are. Because they do sound like something he'd write about in a twisted poem of his, not something he'd do in real life. Sure if he's guilty then it would be horrifying, but if he's saying stuff like that, I'm assuming he isn't and he's just making light of them. 

Yeah, as you can tell, I'm very much within that free thinking left quadrant. I don't like how the SJWs are trying to come into our fandoms and make us conform to their little quasi religion, and I dont like them trying to change stuff that I like. I literally see them as no different than the fundamentalist christian right. And I'm just an unapologetic and willing to show them the door for trying to start crap or boss people around. 

So yeah, Rammstein, Till, assuming innocence, just keep being you. Don't let this crap get to you where it changes who you are. Just keep being the same cool people you've always been and screw the haters. I believe that the justice system will figure out the truth either way. If he's guilty, send him to prison for a private shooting of ach so gern 2, but if he's innocent, let the man do his art. His art is awesome. It's subversive, it pushes boundaries, and at the end of the day, it sounds freaking good, and looks even better in concert. 

So yeah, I love rammstein, I personally am leaning toward till being innocent, but that's for the courts to decide, and even if the worst happens, I'll still listen to them. It might change the meaning of some stuff, particularly his side gig stuff that is a bit more on the offensive side, and i might be less comfortable with it, but all in all, i do tend to separate the art from the artist, so yeah. Rammstein is an integral part of who I am today as a person, from my respect for subversive art to my laissez faire attitudes toward social issues and they even had a role in spiritual life. So I ain't even dropping them entirely. I stand with rammstein, innocent until proven guilty, and even if guilty the art is still awesome.

Dear SJWs: keep out of our fandoms

 A particularly annoying aspect of the culture war is the tendency for groups involved to start injecting themselves into the literal culture of the culture war. Not just culture in broader society, but media in general. I'm a libertarian, and being libertarian, I support freedom of speech, almost to a fault. I support freedom of speed firmly and unapologetically, and support the bare minimum intervention by regulatory authorities to dictate what is said to us. Authoritarians on the left and right LOVE to try to force peoples' speech to conform to their ideology. And yes, I am going to both sides this crap. The right is currently fighting a war on "wokeness" and trying to ban any discussion of critical theory in our education system and society at large, and that is wrong. But the SJWs also often love to inject themselves into speech and dictate that everything revolves around their theories too. And it's annoying. 

Yes yes, this has to do with Rammstein. Rammstein is the epitome of my ideas on free speech. They've always been a band that tends to be controversial. And they are so to many groups. Fundamentalist christians would have all kinds of things to say about the sexual nature of their songs, and how their music does not conform to christian doctrines. But SJWs as of late also have this problem with Rammstein, and seem to be trying to cancel the band, believing that Till Lindemann is a misogynist and that his music promotes "rape culture", whatever the frick that is (basically anything that goes against their ideas for how things should be). And it does seem like, with these new allegations against the band, that the SJW types have decided that Till Lindemann and Rammstein are the targets for the next front of the culture war and seem to be trying to "cancel" them.

And I'm just going to say it, anyone who thinks they can make me stop listening to Rammstein has another thing coming. I've been a fan of the band for almost 20 years, and as I said, their music has gotten me through some deep crap. I don't believe that they endorse the themes of the music they sing about, they just try to be edgy and sing about all kinds of dark crap. I've heard people compare till lindemann to a modern version of goethe. And yes, till sings about sex CONSTANTLY. As well as love, and heartbreak, and any theme related to sexuality imaginable. He also isn't afraid to cover really controversial topics, which is where he's getting in trouble as of late. People are comparing some of his newer works to the alleged behavior in the allegations, and moving past just criticizing him within the context of said allegations, but leveling criticism at his art. And in the process, many of these people want to cancel Rammstein and Till Lindemann in general, and to shame people into stop listening to and enjoying his stuff. Which is a major red line for me. If you know me in person, you'll know I'm basically literally obsessed with Rammstein. Like, being autistic they're a literal special interest for me. I listen to them hours a day at times, i watched their concerts, i have detailed opinions on all of their songs, and I'm very much enthusiastically into them. it's simply a part of my being, to the point that anyone who makes me choose between their friendship and me listening to the band is going to find themselves out on their butts and no longer my friend. No one tells me not to listen to them, no one. 

If you want to criticize him within the context of the allegations against him, go for it. I think that the allegations are seriously, and while I dont necessarily believe them between the original accuser destroying her own credibility as time goes on, and the media seemingly presenting other, newer accusations in a biased manner to generate controversy, but I think that they are worth discussing. Till is infamous for having wild sex parties and the like, and I think that the idea of something being systematically wrong at them, or till not necessarily acting properly at them is debatable. I've heard, prior to this year's accusations, mostly positive experiences and that the guy values consent and blah blah blah, but if that turns out to be untrue, well, then, throw the book at him. No one is above the law, not even my idols. 

But let's be straight here. This isn't for us peons to decide, with incomplete and biased information. This is force the courts to decide. But SJW types dont want to fight their battle in the courts, in the realms of needing to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. They want to fight their battles in the culture at large, on social media and regular media. They want to change minds, and influence hearts, and they want to make us believe hearsay and rumors, and when they doesn't work out for them, they want us to stop listening to their music because they don't like the themes in it. To which I tell them to kindly screw off. 

It's annoying. I'm starting to understand, as a gamer (yeah, im one of those too) why people were so hyped up over gamergate a decade ago. I mean, I'm not saying "gamers" were necessarily right on that one (it seemed like no one was right, honestly), and I'm not saying gaming doesn't have a very significant misogyny problem, but the SJWs just like to come in and tell us how we should act and how everything needs to revolve around them, and when they happens we should unceremoniously show them the door. 

And even worse with the rammstein fanbase. A lot of these SJWs are calling US misogynists and crap. And let's be honest, rammstein fans are some of the most chill people out there normally. We're quite progressive and socially libertarian. You kind of have to be open minded and not a prude to like Rammstein, to be perfectly honest. And we generally dont care what people do with their PPs. I cant speak for everyone here, but that's generally the impression I get. But then the weirdo SJWs are coming in and telling us we're misogynistic and need to be better allies and they're disappointed in us and how they can't listen to the band any more, and you know what I say? Leave. There's the door. 

The only controversy worth discussing in all honesty, as far as cancelling till lindemann and rammstein goes, are sexual assault allegations, and stuff like drink spiking. And if that stuff can't be substantiated, then the dude walks free. And even if he is proven guilty, i still aint gonna stop listening to his work. But beyond that, people are going beyond these allegations into attacking his work directly, and that's where I tend to have problems. My fandoms are not battlegrounds for your culture war nonsense. I'd much rather you get out and stop enjoying our crap, than remaining in our communities and telling us what we should enjoy, or how we should act, or blah blah blah. 

And even worse, for all the brigaders on reddit who come into our fandoms for the sole purpose of starting arguments and driving controversy, kindly screw off. You're not welcome in my humble opinion. Take your outrage over the situation back to your gossip subs and that crap. 

Yeah, I really ain't holding back. I'm getting sick and tired of this crap, and sick and tired of entertaining these whackos or giving them any breathing room. I'm just trying to unceremoniously show them the door.

An economic bill of rights for the 21st century

 So, before we got sidetracked by...other topics, I was evaluating Marianne Williamson's platform and her call for an economic bill of rights. This bill of rights was very much in the spirit of FDR's bill of rights, although I had some significant doctrinal differences between both Williamson and FDR's iterations of an economic bill of rights. That said, I want to outline my core vision for an economic bill of rights. 

1) A right to a livable income

There is no excuse, in the 21st century, for poverty to still exist in industrialized countries. We launched a war on poverty 60 years ago and poverty won, not because poverty is unconquerable, but because we chose inefficient policies that could not finish the job. Welfare doesn't work, means testing doesn't work, conditional programs do not work. We need to guarantee ALL americans a right to an income at above the poverty level through the policy known as the universal basic income guarantee. 

Policies to accomplish this: Universal basic income

2) A right to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs

America claims to be a country built on freedom, and an inalienable right to pursue one's happiness. Well, how can we claim to be free, when we are subjuct to these mini tyrannies known as workplaces. As long as people are coerced to work for some employer, they will be forced to take deals that they would otherwise refuse. The only way to free people from bad employers is by ensuring that they do not need any employer at all. This is not to say that people cannot seek jobs if they truly desire them, but people should not be forced into the work place. This right will be achieved by the universal basic income I advocate for above.

Policies to accomplish this: Universal basic income

3) A right to fair wages, working conditions, work life balance, and unionization

Even with a right to say no, we still need work done in society, and such a right may not be fully accomplishable in reality. While I advocate for it to the fullest extent possible, and believe in the long term we should aim for it, in the mean time, we do need policies to ensure that workers are treated as fairly as possible. As such, we should have laws giving people a reasonable minimum wage. We should have a right to safe working conditions. We should have a right to work fewer hours as productivity rises over time. And we should have a right to organize and form unions, and to collectively apply our bargaining power to labor disputes. 

Policies to accomplish this: minimum wage, updated OSHA, updated FLSA, reduced work week and/or mandated vacation time, expanded union protection

4) A right to healthcare

The United States is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a reasonable right to healthcare. And it's sickening. Tens of thousands die every year due to lack of health insurance. Many more cannot afford healthcare and ration medicines every month. Many more go bankrupt trying to pay for it. This is a market failure, a failure of the for profit business model. Everyone should have coverage, and the government should accomplish this through a robust public option at minimum, or a single payer healthcare system. 

Policies to accomplish this: public option or single payer healthcare system, medical debt forgiveness

5) A right to higher education

College education being a universal right is important for several reasons. First of all, even with a universal basic income, jobs are still an important part of social mobility, and a right to education levels the playing field to allow people to seek the jobs that they want to work. Without a right to higher education, such an education becomes a privilege for only those who can afford it, and many are stuck in debt servitude trying to pay off their college education. College education is also important because in order for democracy to actually work properly, people need to be informed, and higher education gives people the crucial critical thinking tools for this to happen. As such, the government should provide a free higher education to every citizen, and wipe student loan debt clean. 

Policies to accomplish this: free college, student debt forgiveness

6) A right to adequate housing

The housing market is broken and needs reform. We need to build more homes to meet demand for them, and we need to stop for profit agencies such as landlords, bankers, investors, house flippers, etc., from abusing the housing market for profit. 

Policies to accomplish this: universal basic income, expanded housing program, land value tax on property owners who do more than simply live in their house

-----

These six rights are what I think should form the core of a 21st century economic bill of rights. However, there are other things raised by others that I think should be discussed, and I'll discuss them now.

A right to a job

I think a right to a job as a core right is a bit...suspect. A lot of people push for this, but they seem to be unable or unwilling to break the link between a job and income. This is my fundamental disagreement with a more traditional economic bill of rights. Jobs exist to make things, and i fear a hard right to a job would lead to a sisyphusian future in which we keep insisting on rolling rocks up hills for all eternity when instead of pursuing never ending economic growth, we should pursue a leisure ethic in which we work less. In other words, I fear it undermines the right to say no, implicitly. 

I also do not think that it is possible to reasonably guarantee everyone a job, much less a job that is fulfilling. And I do not think the government should be in the business of making make work for its own sake. 

Still, I am for the government trying to minimize involuntary unemployment, as it generally does, and to pursue policies aimed at minimizing involuntary unemployment among willing participants, just as it generally does not. Jobs are still socially useful, and if people want to do them for extra money, then so be it, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't believe in forcing people. 

A right to a clean environment

I fear this one would, once again, be construed to push for massive jobs programs and make work. While I support this idea implicitly and believe we should pursue some sort of program to avert the worst effects of climat change, I generally prefer a more moderate approach a la Build Back Better or Yang's 2020 plan, than a full green new deal. We can work out the details to this one. 

A right to postal banking

Marianne Williamson proposed this one, and I really dont think this is important enough to be a right. Still, I like the idea and could see it working in conjunction with my UBI plan. Anyone who gets a UBI could get it direct deposited into a banking account through the postal service. And public banking probably wouldnt be subject to the same screwery as private banking. 

----

But yeah, that's my economic bill of rights, subject to changes and additions over time. But I think this is a good start. In short, I give people a right to an above poverty level income, a right to say no to not just any job, but all jobs, a right to a decent wage, working conditions, work life balance, and unionization, and rights to healthcare, higher education, and housing. I think this hits most of the basics, although we can continue to talk about expanding this further. 

Believe all women? No, but take their claims seriously until proven otherwise

 So, this is another Rammstein adjacent post, but we often hear in relation to womens' sexual assault claims, that we have to "believe all women." I mean, why would they make it up? That might be true in a lot of situations, sure. I mean, women are generally very underbelieved when it comes to sexual assault allegations. And in a lot of situations they have zero reason to lie. 

BUT...this Rammstein thing really does show the limits of that. It seems obvious that the accuser's narrative is falling apart, and she just got too drunk on her own accord. I mean, people who were there outright contradicted her. And her narrative is looking more questionable by the day.

I know normally, I take this strong, secular humanist standpoint of skepticism, and tend to view things through a lens of "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", and from a court of law standpoint, that is basically the mindset to have, but on believing sexual assault victims, there's generally a much lower standard SJWs like to push. They do so for good reason, most claims are probably legitimate even if not proven, but people can be wrong. And it seems like this is one of those cases.

This girl is basically crying wolf at this point and destroying her own credibility. I don't deny she thinks she was spiked, but she seems to be flat out wrong here. Sadly, this happens a lot, an NIH study into spiking accusations find that like 90% of people who suspected they were spiked were just WAAAY too drunk, and a good 35% of them still end up believing they were spiked regardless of the evidence. 

That seems to be what's happening here. 

It's also been noted that she may have been on medications that don't interact well with alcohol and could cause people to blackout as if spiked. Hmm, I wonder what happened there...

But yeah. It's not reasonable to BELIEVE all women here. It's valid to take their claims seriously, and to evaluate them and the evidence for them, but you dont have to BELIEVE them in all cases. Basically, if there's a motive to lie, which there often is in high profile celebrity cases like this, or if they have a reason to want to smear someone, then yeah it's perfectly reasonable to NOT believe women if they suddenly come out with a conveniently times accusation. 

And if the person in question makes their case as public as possible, starts slandering the people they're accusing of spiking them, and the actual accusations are on shaky ground and have valid alternative explanations like "gee maybe you drank too much", and are NOT supported by evidence, then maybe you shouldn't.

Use your brains people. I know SJWs love to push feels over reals, but in a world where false accusations exist, whether knowingly or unknowingly, you gotta judge things yourself. 

And honestly, in a lot of cases that are less public, it might be good NOT to judge at all. I know SJWs love to push this "believe all women" stuff, but honestly? I dont think it's the job of the public to judge cases of guilt or innocence, that's what the jury is for. And every time we have some sort of court case that becomes a public spectacle, we got all of these people thinking the people being accused are guilty AF, and then they get angry when it turns out they weren't. Remember the Kyle Rittenhouse thing? Yeah, I'm still salty over "my side" misleading me on the facts of that one. And then you have OJ simpson, casey anthony, need I go on? Same crap. "They're guilty", then the jury finds them not guilty, and then they get mad because obviously the issue is as cut and dried as it is in their head, and then they get mad and think they know better than the jury. My former criminology peers from college will know what I mean, as they too get angry every time social media blows up and the public thinks they fricking know it all and then are proven wrong. 

So maybe for the most part, we people in the peanut gallery shouldnt even take a side for the most part. Because we really DONT know the facts and the legal standards. And when the SJWs want people to "believe all women", they really do seem to wanna bypass courts and legal proceedings anyway. They WANT to litigate things in the court of public opinion, because they dont believe in rule of law. They're extremists who want everything to bend to their ideology, and want to inspire mob justice in order to "cancel" people who they dont agree with. 

So yeah, the more I think about "believe all women", the worse it gets for me. 

I mean, it means well. And I do think we should take sexual assault claims seriously, but ultimately, it's the justice system's job to make rulings on that, not ours, and our opinions don't matter worth a crap.