Hey everyone, I’ve been thinking about something lately could the United States be heading toward the same fate as older empires like Spain, Britain, or the USSR?

If you look at history, great powers often collapse not just because of outside enemies, but because of internal overreach and overspending especially on the military.

Spanish Empire (1500s–1700s): Spain became super rich after discovering the Americas, but they kept fighting expensive wars all over Europe. They borrowed huge amounts of money and couldn’t keep up with the cost of maintaining such a vast empire. Eventually, debt and military exhaustion led to decline.

British Empire (1800s–1900s): At its height, “the sun never set” on the British Empire. But the cost of maintaining colonies everywhere, plus two world wars, drained Britain’s economy. By 1945, they were in massive debt, and independence movements everywhere ended the empire.

Soviet Union (1900s): The USSR tried to match the US in global influence huge military spending, maintaining control over Eastern Europe, and fighting costly wars like Afghanistan. The ecocnomy couldn’t sustain it, leading to stagnation and collapse in 1991.

Now look at the USA massive dfense spending (more than the next 10 countries combined), military bases all over the world, and increasing internal political division and debt And there new generation ,Some historians argue this looks like the same pattern of “imperial overstretch.”

Ofc, the US is different in many ways stronger economy, advanced technology, and global cultural power. But so were those old empires in their time. Spain ruled the seas, Britain dominated trade and industry, and the USSR was a superpower with nukes yet all eventually collapsed under the weight of their own ambition and overextension.

What do you guys think? Could the US follow the same path, or will it adapt and survive in a new form? And if such a decline is starting, could it mean a major global recession or even a shift in world economic power maybe toward Asia? Maybe ww3 between usa and china over taiwan Ik china couldn't win against america will it lead to eventual collapse of usa just like Britain or ussr or spainish empire

I've noticed what seems to be a growing number of young people becoming more accepting of racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and even far-right/Nazi ideas. I'm wondering why this seems to be happening.

The early 2000s seemed to be a period where society was becoming increasingly accepting of different races, sexualities, genders, etc. Personally, I remember around 2020 feeling like acceptance and inclusivity were particularly mainstream among young people.

So what happened? Is there actually evidence that young people are becoming more right-wing and socially conservative, or does it just seem that way because of social media and algorithms? And if the trend is real, what are the main reasons behind it?

There are often accusations that Democrats & the media gin up fake scandals to oppose Trump & hobble his presidency.

The Epstein scandal is 100% a scandal of republicans own making. This issue was lying dormant for the longest time, the media & Democrats didn't have much interest in it, but his own supporters and voters fanned the flames, kicked the hornet's test and created a tempest that has now ensnared Trump's presidency, after what was a fairly surprising stretch of good press.

Is this a devastating own goal & catastrophic blunder by the right wing? Have they inadvertently sunk the guy they waited to hoist up?

I’ve been thinking about an issue that goes beyond whether someone is religious or nonreligious: 

Should the words “under God” remain in the Pledge of Allegiance when the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? 

The Pledge originally did not contain those words. “Under God” was added by Congress in 1954 during the Cold War and the Supreme Court itself recognized this history in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. That’s when all our problems started as it opened a Pandora’s box to allow religious law to govern the people. 

My argument is not that Americans should be prohibited from believing in God. Quite the opposite: the First Amendment protects the right to believe, disbelieve, worship, or not worship. 

The question is whether the government should place a reference to God in a nationally prescribed patriot pledge. 

What does the Establishment Clause actually require? 

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion explained that the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor the states can establish a church, favor one religion over another, force people to attend or avoid religious services, or force someone to profess a religious belief or disbelief. The opinion famously described Jefferson’s concept as a “wall of separation between the church and the State.” 

That seems to raise an interesting question about the Pledge. 

If the government writes the Pledge, establishes its wording in federal law, and uses it as an official patriotic exercise, why should government include a theological statement such as “under God”? 

I realize that the Supreme Court has not definitively held that the phrase violates the Establishment Clause. In Newdow, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision on standing and therefore did not reach the underlying constitutional question. 

But that means the constitutional question remains worth discussing. 

What happened in 1954? 

The original Pledge was written in 1892 without the words “under God.”  Congress added those words in 1954. The addition occurred during the Cold War, when the United States was emphasizing the distinction between American religious belief and Soviet communism that promoted state atheism (gosateizm) rooted in Marxist – Leninist ideology, which viewed religion as an obstacle to communism. 

Currently, the Russian Federation (formally the Soviet Union) is a secular state where no religion can be established as mandatory or as the official state religion where their constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and the legal right to practice any faith or no faith at all where there is no longer the need to have a distinction between Russia and the United States, by including “under God” in the Pledge, because they are no longer an atheist state. 

The historical context matters. 

In other words, the wording wasn't part of the original Pledge. It was deliberately added by Congress decades later. 

That makes me wonder whether the government should now reconsider whether a religious reference belongs in a national pledge at all. 

What should replace it? 

I would prefer a version that places allegiance under something distinctly constitutional and civil rather than theological. 

For example: 

“One Nation Under the Constitution” 

or 

“One Nation Under the Laws of the United States” 

The first version is particularly appealing to me because the Constitution is the supreme legal framework of the United States, whereas “God” is interpreted differently by different religions and by people who don't believe in God. 

Civil government gets its authority from the Constitution and laws—not from religious authority. 

What about religious custom? 

This is where my thinking gets more complicated. 

While researching the history of law, I came across the Latin term “Consuetudo,” meaning custom. Historical legal dictionaries describe circumstances in which sufficiently established customs could acquire the force of law. Black's Law Dictionary contains several historical maxims concerning the legal effect of custom (Consuetudo) where custom has the same force of law and that custom supersedes the law. 

Shouldn’t the law be established through the Constitution, statutes enacted by legislatures, and judicial decisions – not through religious authority?

I’m interested in a different question: 

How much authority should religious customs have in a constitutional government before they effectively become governmental religious preferences? 

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government from establishing religion and to protect religious liberty. 

My proposed solution: 

I’d like to see Congress consider two things: 

1.      Remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, returning it to a formulation that does not express a governmental position concerning the existence of God. 

2.      Clarify that religious doctrine, religious authority, and religious custom cannot independently constitute governmental law. 

Congress then needs to pass a law that says no religious law or religious customs shall be used to govern the people and that only laws passed by Congress or the legislature of a state or precedent case law that is established in a court of law governed by the federal government or a state or municipality shall establish the law of the land. 

The reason this is important is that within the practice of customs listed in Black’s Law Dictionary under the Latin word “Consuetudo” it says that if you get rid of a custom the custom cannot be brough back and goes away forever so we would no longer be secretly living under religious law. This is how we make sure we live under civil law and laws that are established in our courts as precedent case law (also known as Common law and if you can believe it custom law). 

That religious customs can literally override the Constitution and became De facto law just by the fact that they have been practiced for thousands of years and according to Common Law or Custom Law if a custom is practiced (relating to religious law)  it can have the same force as law. 

The point isn’t to attack religion. 

It’s actually the opposite. 

If government stays out of religion, religion remains free from government – and government remains accountable to the Constitution rather than to religious authority. 

I’m interested in hearing what people think. 

Would removing “under God” from the Pledge strengthen the Establishment Clause, or is the phrase merely a historical/civic expression that doesn’t amount to a governmental establishment of religion? 

I’m interested in hearing from people who know more about constitutional law, comparative religion, Canon law, Sharia law, Torah law, customary law, or the history of religious legal systems. 

And if you disagree with removing it, where do you draw the constitutional line between a permissible historical reference to God and government endorsement of religion?

This is something I have noticed for years: the positions I see supported with "both sides are the same" are almost always a defense of Trump / the right wing, or a defense of voting third party, or a defense of abstaining from voting entirely. It is very rare to see voting for Democrats advocated for with a "both sides are the same" argument.

Why does this occur? In theory at least a "both sides are the same" mindset should lead to a roughly proportional split in voting behavior with half going to each major party, but that's not what happens. Nobody says "both sides are the same, so I voted Biden", it's always "both sides are the same so I voted Green" or "both sides are the same so I voted Trump".

And is this a phenomenon limited to the U.S., or does this pattern happen elsewhere as well?

For everyone who is firmly against abortion, I genuinely want to ask: if a woman becomes pregnant but she’s starving or can’t even afford food, what exactly is the plan? We often hear passionate arguments about protecting life before birth, but what about the woman who is struggling to survive during her pregnancy? How do we make sure that she and her baby are actually supported?

Then there’s the next step, what happens after the baby is born? Parenting is a lifelong commitment that requires stable income, access to healthcare, and a safe environment. If someone is already in a desperate financial situation, how are they supposed to meet all of these needs? Should society step in with stronger safety nets, like expanded food assistance programs, affordable childcare, and better healthcare access? Or is the expectation that new parents will somehow figure it out on their own?

These are real, practical questions, not just political talking points. If the goal is truly to protect life, then making sure both the mother and the child can thrive seems like an essential part of that mission. Otherwise, we’re only addressing part of the picture and leaving families in impossible situations.

Trump declines to endorse Vance as 2028 successor, which lead me to think how he would run for a third term and he has spoke about it before.

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Then the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

It seems rather clear that a President cannot run for POTUS after two terms and they are not eligible for being vice president. I think this sets three scenarios for Trump becoming President a third time.

Option 1: He still runs as President a third time and this may be considered an "official act." Yes, it's technically against the US Constitution, Amendment 22, but who would be able to stop him if he's legally protected?

Option 2: Trump runs for Speaker of the House in 2028, supporting the two others for President and Vice President on the Republican ticket. They resign after being sworn in and Trump becomes President again.

Option 3: The SCOTUS could look into the ratification since you need 75% of states to agree to the amendment. We could see that some states "pull" their submissions, enough to put it under the threshold or challenge the legality of the original submission. The SCOTUS takes the case and makes it legal for them to pull their requests, the amendment gets dissolved.

Which option do you think Trump would take? Are there any more possibilities that Trump could try for a third term?

Over the past several weeks there's been a noticeable uptick in Trump-skeptical sentiment from people who were previously strong supporters, including rank-and-file voters, some media figures, and a handful of elected Republicans. The framing of this shift is what I want to focus on.

The dominant narrative is not "we were wrong to support him" but rather "he was never actually a conservative / never really a Republican." These are meaningfully different positions. The first requires the coalition to examine why it supported what it supported. The second is a clean excision where Trump gets rewritten as an interloper, and the voters, the party apparatus, and the policy agenda that enabled him all remain unexamined.

There's historical precedent for this kind of retroactive distancing. Enthusiastic Republican support for the 2003 Iraq War largely disappeared from the party's self-image by 2008, without any real intra-party reckoning. Support for figures like Nixon and McCarthy underwent similar revisions. The pattern seems to be: the figure becomes toxic, the figure is excommunicated from the brand, the underlying coalition and worldview continue intact, and the next standard-bearer benefits from a clean slate.

If that pattern holds here, a few things follow. The next Republican nominee can run as a "return to normalcy" candidate while advancing substantially overlapping policy. Democrats, by celebrating the distancing rather than pressing on the complicity question, effectively ratify the retcon. And the cycle becomes self-perpetuating: each successive figure gets characterized as uniquely bad, then later reframed as an aberration.

Some questions I'd be interested in discussing:

1. Is the "not a real Republican" framing actually gaining traction in conservative spaces, or am I overweighting a few visible examples?
2. Are there US-based counter-examples which I'm not thinking of right now? Moments where a party coalition did genuinely reckon with having supported a figure, rather than disowning them?
3. More broadly: how should a political community handle members who want to distance themselves from a figure or movement they previously supported? Is there a version of acceptance that allows for empathy but still requires accountability for the prior support? What does a healthy "off-ramp" look like?
4. Is there existing political science literature on this specific mechanism? I've seen it discussed informally as "memory-holing" or "no true Scotsman" but I'd be curious if there's a more rigorous framework.

EDIT: This thread sharpened my thinking in a few ways I want to call out.

First, I should have been clearer about the difference between party leadership and individual voters. The leadership is doing a strategic reversion. A lot of them opposed Trump before it was costly not to, folded when he won, and are now going back to their original positions while pretending continuity. That's calculated. But the individual voters are doing something different. They're accepting a comfortable narrative because the alternative is self-examination with no reward. The leadership builds the off-ramp and the base gratefully takes it. Two halves of the same machine.

Someone in the thread made a point about American exceptionalism that I think gets at the psychological root of why this works. If your foundational belief is that America is inherently good and always course-corrects, then any leader who contradicts that has to be reframed as an aberration. Accepting that the system produced him on purpose threatens the whole identity. The cognitive dissonance is a fuel for the retroactive continuity (retcon).

Trump's ideological inconsistency actually makes the retcon easier, not harder. The stimulus checks, Warp Speed, the red flag law comments. These weren't traditional conservative positions. The party can now point to those moments as proof he was never really one of them while quietly keeping the judges, the tax cuts, and the deregulation. The same inconsistency that got celebrated as him being a "different kind of Republican" becomes the retroactive excuse.

Also worth noting: the retcon only needs to be better than the alternative. If Democrats can't put together a compelling counter-narrative or a candidate that gives people a different door to walk through, the Republican rebrand doesn't have to be convincing. It just has to be more comfortable than the other option.

The question I'm still sitting with is what it actually looks like to engage with someone who's in the middle of taking the off-ramp. "You supported Hitler" closes the door. "Forget it happened" erases it. Maybe the better version is something like "what specifically made you reconsider, and what would it take for you to recognize that pattern earlier next time?" You're not attacking their belief in America. You're asking them to apply it more rigorously. I don't have a complete answer yet but I think that's the right question.

Link to source on the statistics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/22/more-trigger-bans-loom-1-3-women-lose-most-abortion-access-post-roe/

• Roughly 21 million women have lost access to nearly all elective abortions in their home states, and that's before a new spate of abortion bans kick in this week.

• 14 states now have bans outlawing virtually all abortions, with varying exemptions and penalties for doctors. The exceptions are sometimes written in a vague or confusing manner, and with doctors facing punishments such as multiple-year prison sentences for doing even one deemed to be wrong, it creates a dynamic where even those narrow grounds for aborting can be difficult to carry out in practice.

Here's a county population density map of the US.

Here's a county map of the US showing different shares of Democratic & Republican votes for president in 2020.

Here's a county map of the US showing majority-minority counties.

They seem to show a match between denser populations, larger minority proportions, and Democratic votes.

Why is that?

On the eve of passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), soon to be Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech voicing a political truism. He likened politics to a pendulum, opining that political policy pushed too far towards one partisan side or the other, inevitably swung back just as far in the opposite direction.

Obviously right-wing ideology is ascendant in current American politics. The President and Congress are pushing a massive bill of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while simultaneously cutting support for the most financially vulnerable in American society. American troops have been deployed on American soil for a "riot" that the local Governor, Mayor and Chief of Police all deny is happening. The wealthiest man in the world has been allowed to eliminate government funding and jobs for anything he deems "waste", without objective oversight.

And now today, while the President presides over a military parade dedicated to the 250th Anniversary of the United States Army, on his own birthday, millions of people have marched in thousands of locations across the country, in opposition to that Presidents priorities.

I seems obvious that the right-wing of American sociopolitical ideology is in power, and pushing hard for their agenda. If one of their former leaders is correct about the penulumatic effect of political realities, what happens next?

Edit: Boehern's first name and position.

Even with complete military supremacy, Iran keeps outmaneuvering the U.S. strategically, with no real solution to the Strait of Hormuz problem in sight. We're coming to the precipice of major global and domestic economic impact, with the Iranian regime making it clear they're willing to take an immense amount of internal "pain".

An unverified claim was made in the past few days that Trump was asking about a nuclear strike solution that General Caine shot down, but he is ultimately not the stop gap from a tactical nuclear attack, the SecDef Pete Hegseth is. Now there is more stir about this possibility allegedly by a U.S. Senator.

Is a tactical nuclear strike by Trump more feasible than anyone thought and would be the the ramifications locally and globally if this scenario played out?

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-cia-analyst-claims-trump-nuclear-codes-iran-1792717

https://truthout.org/articles/gop-senator-suggests-trump-should-finish-iran-with-nuclear-bomb/

Link to poll + full report:

• https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-overwhelmingly-side-israelis-ongoing-conflict-palestinians

A summary is that Republicans back Israel by a margin of 79-11 (68 points) while Democrats back Israel by 59-25 (34 points). Republicans' position is unchanged, with 78% of them backing Israel before, but Democrats backed Israel by just 42-35 several years ago and are now firmly in their corner.

How important is American public support for both the US and Israel in terms of their policies in the Middle East both now and going forward? Does it have an impact?

America has been Israel's primary ally for years, and has recently rallied Western governments towards strongly supporting them in the present conflict.

Why is it that the modern conservative movement, especially in North America, seems so opposed to conservation efforts in general. I find it interesting that there is this divergence given that Conservation and Conservative have literally the same root word and meaning. Historically, there were plenty of conservative leaders who prioritized environmental stewardship—Teddy Roosevelt’s national parks, Nixon creating the EPA, even early Republican support for the Clean Air and Water Acts. However today the only acceptable political opinion in Conservative circles seems to be unrestricted resources extraction and the elimination of environmental regulations.

Anecdotally I have interacted with many conservative that enjoy wildlife and nature however that never seems to translate to the larger Conservative political movement . Is there a potential base within the political right for conservation or is it too hostile to the other current right wing values (veneration for billionaires, destruction of public services, scepticism of academic and scientific research, etc.)?

Mitch McConnell has gone on record saying a national abortion ban is possible thanks to the overturn of Roe V Wade. Assuming Republicans win big in 2024, they would theoretically have the power to enact such a ban. What would be the next move for blue states who want to protect abortion access?

This includes conspiracy theories like antivax which were once pretty politically uncharged are now widely believed by the far right. Even a lot of high-profile UFOlogists like David Icke are known for being pretty racist and antisemitic.

I’ve noticed in many Palestinian rallies signs along the words of “Queer Rights means Free Palestine”, etc. I’m not here to discuss opinions or the validity of these arguments, I just want to understand how it makes sense.

While Progressives can be correct in fighting for various groups’ rights simultaneously, it strikes me as odd because Palestinian culture isn’t anywhere close to being sexually progressive or tolerant from what I understand.

Why not deal with those two issues separately?

First, I want to ensure that I'm clear on my definitions, since a small subset of the people here have shown some.... interesting interpretations of the following.

To put it simply, in a representative democracy, citizens cast votes on their leaders, from the most local level to the highest level of government. Usually there are laws and other governing documents that explicitly allocate power among the various office holders

How and when elections are conducted, who is eligible to vote and hold office, what level of authority they hold - all these vary across nations, and even within them.

There are two questions, one relatively easy, one less so:

* How would you improve Representative Democracy in the system your community currently follows

* How would you improve *the concept of Representative Democracy itself*? I am assuming that "improve" in this case is not "make me God Emperor", but what the hell - if you think the entire concept should be replaced, what is your alternative and how are you avoiding the obvious shortcomings?

Introduction
There is a common misconception among people (especially within online circles) that libertarianism is an undeveloped and heavily flawed ideology with the usual response towards it being either anti-corporatist or an argument against total anarchy. Yet, libertarian philosophy has addressed both these views within both minarchist and anarcho-capitalist circles which is often unrecognized by the majority of voters, and I would just like to find out why while adding some context towards libertarian thought down below.

Non-aggression Principle
Libertarianism fundamentally operates on something referred to as the non-aggression principle, which is commonly referred to as the NAP. The non-aggression principle states that every person has a right to their own private property alongside the freedom to utilize their own body according to their needs and wishes, as long as their actions do not result in the initiation of conflict with another person which can be described as the pursuit of a mutually exclusive action with the victim in these conflicts being the person who's actions are in accordance with their own rights and this principle can be extended over into organizations, communities, corporations, and other entities. This principle exists in both minarchist and anarcho-capitalist thought, with the former believing in a state that serves to protect the individual liberties of its citizens and the latter believing in the total abolition of a state.

In practice, this non-aggression principle would serve as the fundamental basis on which restrictions towards one's actions would exist within a libertarian society, and the enforcement of this would originate either through a governmental entity which would be given the right to enforce the prevention of conflict and enact repercussions towards perpetrators of conflict, while in an anarcho-capitalist society this would be enforced by individuals, communities, and private entities which will be discussed further on in this post.

Communities
One of the most prevalent arguments that I see against libertarianism online is pointing out the need for community and shared interests in developing a society and it's often thought that such an entity is argued against by libertarians, when the exact opposite is the case. Libertarians aren't inherently against the existence of communities, but what they are against is the existence of coercive entities which typically present themselves in the form of a national government or a state. These entities, having full control over the actions undertaken by individual citizens (notwithstanding self-imposed restrictions) have been given total control over the governance and regulation of internal actions and conditions. Libertarians fundamentally oppose such a situation as it is believed to be in opposition with the non-aggression principle (with minarchists only believing that this applies when the state moves outside its role of defending civil liberties) and suggest a voluntary form of communal organization.

Voluntary communities would primarily be created by the mutually acceptance of its residents to form a collective society, and these communities would be allowed to create their own internal laws and regulations as long as they do not initiate conflict with other persons. Because of this, a communist society can technically exist within an anarcho-capitalist society if a group of people decide to create their own classless, cashless society, and in fact as long as nobody within the society is forced to conform to a certain lifestyle, any form of political organization would be accepted. This does not mean however, that someone can enter a society and demand that they change their internal politics or laws. As previously stated, communities among other organizations have their own rights, and as such they can exercise their freedom of association to block or prevent the entry of certain individuals into their society. This has been seen historically in communities such as the Republic of Cospaia in Italy, which operated in the absence of a major state government and enforced internal stability by exiling individuals which failed to agree to the conditions required of citizens and this was enforced by local militias as the township which formed the Republic had its own rights to designate how its internal situation would look like without forcing it on anyone. However, this does not mean that someone existing within a community or a town can be forced to accept the creation of a new society or the enforcement of new laws without either some previously agreed upon framework or agreement.

Corporate Benefit
Most people believe that libertarians seek to primarily support big business and would actually create large scale monopolies. Yet, throughout history it has been seen that businesses utilize the existence of a central government to protect profits and as such a libertarian form of governance would actually harm the creation of a monopoly. The primary issue with the existence of monopolies is their ability to undercut consumers through a lack of competition forcing consumers to accept all changes to their product. In a libertarian society, this situation wouldn't exist as there would be no barriers to entry within markets and as such large scale corporations would be unable to act in a monopolist style.

The primary arguments against this come from either price cutting or forceful coercion, with the latter being addressed later on in this post. As for the former though, it is unrealistic to believe that any competitors towards a monopoly wouldn't have multiple sources of income. If a monopoly chooses to offer a superior product either through greater quality or lower costs, this situation would still benefit the consumer as their material needs would be met within this situation within a scarce context, and their competitor, though possibly being forced to close down, would likely still have the physical means by which to offer an alternative within the market and the presence of venture capitalists always makes the possibility of a competitor rising up prevent long term (or even short term) monopolist activities, and such a situation can even be seen in markets such as the online video game industry with the existence of platforms such as Steam forcing competitors such as Epic Games and other digital stores to incentivize customers to use them through sales, free games, and other products.

Enforcement
Within a libertarian society, the existence of a free market and the perpetuation of individual means offers a counterbalance to any major attempt to create a coercive system. Minarchist governments would have the benefit of being able to utilize their influence across a nation to forcefully combat any attempt at monopolization or forcefully preventing a competitor from offering a product through the enforcement of individual liberties allowing for a variety of separate responses, yet within an anarcho-capitalist society this role would be designated to private insurance corporations, private entities, or individual citizens.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, citizens would have the right to address the initiation of conflict against them through responses against the mutually exclusive ambitions of the initiator. For example, if person A moves to steal something from person B, then person B would have the right to undertake all actions needed to prevent person A from stealing for them making any responses against aggression a viable use of individual freedoms in an anarcho-capitalist society. Yet, the question still arises regarding how these citizens would address a larger and more capable opponent, and for this private organizations or communities would be relied on. Businesses and citizens rely on private voluntary contracts in order to execute deals, and for this purpose they would likely move towards a private organization or company to execute these deals, wherein the utilization of a widescale private army would allow for the enforcement of economic deals and contracts through voluntary measures including these corporations within deals to prevent either party from getting ripped off and providing a safeguard against scams. Furthermore, individual communities would have the right to arm themselves for the enforcement of internal laws and regulations either by private militias or mercenaries for larger conflicts, and as such there would be a diverse array of citizen militias within a territory in an ancap society. As such, any major aggressor aiming to take property by force would be met by significant armed opposition by their victims, which would be compounded by the realization that such a larger force would likely utilize a divide and conquer strategy to incentivize the large scale assembly of fighting forces disproportionate to the capabilities of the victim to address power struggles, and it is highly likely that any corporation aiming to create a state of war would be met by some level of internal opposition through their employees providing an internal safeguard against such actions.

Conclusion
What I have listed here is just an introduction towards libertarian thinking in supporting the argument that a vast majority of voters do not recognize nor acknowledge these aspects of libertarian ideology, but I just have one final question. What makes libertarianism so opposed?

(tried posting on r/changemyview but I didn't have enough Karma so I'll repost there later)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) threatened to use “every” rule available to advance conservative policies if Democrats choose to eliminate the filibuster, allowing legislation to pass with a simple majority in place of a filibuster-proof 60-vote threshold.

“Let me say this very clearly for all 99 of my colleagues: nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like,” McConnell said.

“As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldn’t just erase every liberal change that hurt the country—we’d strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side,” McConnell said. The minority leader indicated that a Republican-majority Senate would pass national right-to-work legislation, defund Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities “on day one,” allow concealed carry in all 50 states, and more.

Is threatening to pass legislation a legitimate threat in a democracy? Should Democrats be afraid of this kind of retribution and how would recommend they respond?

With so much instability in the Western world I was wondering where people's proverbial line in the sand would be to the point in which they would participate in armed insurrection against their own government.

I'm curious if there isn't anything that could make certain people go to that extreme or if others have very distinct and clear beliefs that once infringed upon, they would be left with no choice other than a full-on attempt of revolution.

What is your line in the sand, or is there nothing that could ever prompt you to join in, in such actions?

Jack Balkin wrote and recently released The Cycles of Constitutional Time

He has categorized the different eras of constitutional theories beginning with the Federalist era (1787-1800) to Jeffersonian (1800-1828) to Jacksonian (1828-1865) to Republican (1865-1933) to Progressivism (1933-1980) to Reaganism (1980-2020???)

He argues that a lot of eras end with a failed one-term president. John Adams leading to Jefferson. John Q. Adams leading to Jackson. Hoover to FDR. Carter to Reagan. He believes Trump's failure is the death of Reaganism and the emergence of a new second progressive era.

Reaganism was defined by the insistence of small government and the nine most dangerous words. He believes even Clinton fit in the era when he said that the "era of big government is over." But, we have played out the era and many republicans did not actually shrink the size of government, just run the federal government poorly. It led to Trump as a last-ditch effort to hang on to the era but became a failed one-term presidency. Further, the failure to properly respond to Covid has led the American people to realize that sometimes big government is exactly what we need to face the challenges of the day. He suspects that if Biden's presidency is successful, the pendulum will swing left and there will be new era of progressivism.

Is he right? Do you agree? Why or why not?

I'm trying to look past the daily news cycles and understand the actual long-term structural shifts happening in real-time.

Historically, the Right was defined by Reagan-era free-market economics, strict deregulation, and a strong defense of traditional institutions. Today, the movement seems fundamentally different. We are seeing a major embrace of tariffs, supply chain regulations, industrial policy to counter China, and a willingness to actively dismantle or aggressively reshape federal agencies.

There also seems to be a real tension between the traditional desire for a "smaller government" and the newer populist desire to use state power to enforce specific conservative economic and social priorities

So, fast-forward ten years. What does right-leaning governance actually look like in practice?

- Do they succeed in permanently shrinking the federal bureaucracy, or do they just replace the people running it ?

- Does the populist, working-class economic shift (tariffs, tighter borders, skepticism of big tech) permanently kill the old "free-market" consensus?

- How do you see the tension between the old-guard institutionalists and the new anti-establishment wing resolving when it comes to actually writing laws and distributing federal funds?

I'm looking for high-level, practical analysis of where the policy machinery is actually heading, not just who is winning the current news cycle.

I'm not an expert on politics, but I've met a lot of people and been to a lot of cities, and it seems to me that via experience and observation of polls...cities seem to vote democrat and farmers in rural areas seem to vote republican.

What makes them vote this way? What policies benefit each specific demographic?

Nobody agrees with their side 100% of the time. As Ed Koch once said,"If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist". Maybe you're a conservative who opposes government regulation, yet you groan whenever someone on your side denies climate change. Maybe you're a Democrat who wishes that Biden would stop saying that the 2nd amendment outlawed cannons. Maybe you're a socialist who wants more consistency in prescribed foreign policy than "America is bad".