whatifalthist
Implementing a 15% APY (Annual Percentage Yield) checking account specifically for income tax dollars would involve several key components and considerations:
1. Account Structure:
- Establishing dedicated checking accounts within a financial institution or system specifically for income tax dollars.
- Each account would be structured to earn a fixed 15% APY on deposited funds.
2. Operational Readiness:
- Ensuring these accounts maintain high liquidity, allowing immediate access to funds for tax refunds, operational expenses, and other obligations.
- Implementing systems to manage deposits, withdrawals, and interest accrual efficiently and securely.
3. Risk Management:
- Designing the account structure to minimize risk while offering a competitive yield. This could involve investment in low-risk instruments or government-backed securities.
- Establishing clear guidelines and oversight mechanisms to mitigate potential risks associated with higher yields.
4. Regulatory Compliance:
- Adhering to regulatory requirements governing the management of government funds, financial transactions, and interest-bearing accounts.
- Ensuring transparency in how these funds are managed and accounted for, aligning with public trust and financial accountability principles.
5. Impact and Benefits:
- Providing taxpayers with a competitive return on their tax dollars, potentially increasing overall government revenue through interest income.
- Enhancing operational flexibility for the IRS and other government agencies by maintaining sufficient liquidity without compromising financial stability.
6. Public Perception and Trust:
- Communicating clearly with the public about the benefits and risks associated with the proposed system.
- Building confidence in the IRS's ability to manage taxpayer funds responsibly and effectively.
Implementing a 15% APY checking account for income tax dollars would require careful planning, collaboration with financial institutions, regulatory approvals, and ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance and effectiveness. While it presents opportunities for increased income and efficiency, it must be balanced with prudent risk management practices to safeguard taxpayer funds and maintain public trust.
See I'm not just talking shit man
reply

off6848
One thing I agree with was when you said liberty/anarchy is inherently aristocratic. An anarcho-fascist-aristocrat named Renzo Novatore said the same thing.
But I disagree about religion being feminine, mostly because in most literature I read people make the comparison to the masculine instead; because of it's authority and the fact that women are usually not held equal to men in religious societies like you pointed out.
I can see though how maybe that is the ultimate result of letting women in charge, they're going to argue for liberty on behalf of others but desire to be controlled themselves at the same time. That self submission to authority is a lot like mans self submission to God, thats why I consider theocracy to be an advanced sort of alchemy between the genders.
Marriage takes this triune concept to the next level two become one flesh in submission to God, canceling out their worst animalistic tendencies and balancing each other with the care and loyalty corners; which are not unified in any configuration in Doolittle's triangle unfortunately.
I get it though the atheist pull to describe religion as just a force to enslave people to authority and keep them dumb is to strong for some people to look deeper.
reply

DaveGarber1975
When I first learned about the one-dimensional left-right political spectrum, it didn't make much sense to me, because it seemed to me that fascism and socialism had substantial similarities but only superficial differences. When I first learned about the two-dimensional Nolan Chart, it made much more sense to me in general, although I found it hard to clearly differentiate between individual liberty and economic liberty. I've come to believe that the only scale that truly matters is the one-dimensional up-down scale from rightful liberty (bottom-upward government that defends people's freedom) to tyranny/slavery (top-downward government that reigns over everyone with limitless authority. I worry that America started near the correct end of this spectrum but has since gradually degenerated into an anocracy in which top-downward has nearly overtaken bottom-upward. I hope that we modern Americans can prove wiser than our classical Roman counterparts by disallowing our once-free republic to degenerate into imperial oppression. Once we've crossed that tipping-point, it becomes nearly impossible to go back, and we may need to wait for the empire to self-destruct before we can regain our freedom.
reply

LipeManz
1 I think societies today have changed so much that historical analysis is almost speculative.
We changed as a species and our social interactions more in the past 100 years than in the past 1000.
I also think that a woman today can use the idea of living a day standing than a lifetime kneeled like your grandfather told you. For women the european theocracy might not be what they want for them today. I think the video overall is great, but trying to compare today’s western experience with historical ones are kinda of poor.
2 Christianity has all those beautiful values but also has some horrific ones that were probably removed by the balance between authoritarian and freedom powers.
3 One last point I diverge is that the good aspects of a family structure has to be like it has always been. I think western family is getting more diverse, but the main aspects pf it will ultimately survive: being smaller groups, having a hierarchical structure and being somewhat communist/community based
reply

alexispauljean1619
Thanks for the awesome content. I am currently reading why nations fail and I was constantly pondering the parallels to the extractive vs. inclusive institutions theory of the book. I think that the evolutions of many nations can be explained by it. I do not think that the world will ever jointly recognize any particular political model being the best for every nation. Since we in the west with our innovative economies and pluralistic distribution of power are still highly dependent on extractive economies with authoritarian regimes such as China or the Gulf States. (Other example: the rise of English Industrialism complemented by the extractive management of their colonies. I wonder if the freedom of one nation can ever refrain from limiting the freedom of the other side which in my opinion seems inevitable due to the finiteness of the world and the basic human instinct to strive for growth.
reply

joseph8298
Quote: Why is History Rewritten, New Material Along Old Lines p. 52-53, 1929, Internet Archive: It is also necessary to correct the false assumptions frequently made by writers of history. History has often been written along the line of least resistance and thus has been easier to write history by the deductive than inductive method; to assume an hypothesis, either through carelessness, or ignorance, and to make facts, if any are used, to conform to these assumed theses. These assumptions, frequently clothed in language that carries conviction, usually deal with large generalizations and are extremely difficult to disprove. Many of them are the familiar coin of the pseudo-historian, and many have them have passed till to-day. ’
reply

whatifalthist
You talking about war brides in the context of a weak society really opened my eyes. Women in general don't need to care that much about society being strong because they will survive anyways. Thus a strong society would always be a patriarchal one that protects their women from outside but exerts power over them from the inside. The more a society is led by women the weaker it will become and the less it will be able to defend itself against outside threats. On the other side a hard patriarchy with war lords where the access to women is too inequal would lead to a large portion of men being unsatisfied and would be too instable If it couldn't unite there men under a bigger cause.
reply

manifesttruth7645
This explains and solves a lot for me, the only thing I would disagree with is that saying aiming for what is good, not what is true, is delusional is true to some extent but not completely. Societies which vicariously oppress their citizens and provide no means of stability for the family unit are often than not met by resistance from their own citizens. In order to prevent a revolution (like what happened with communism) societies need to cater to their citizens to some extent in order to pacify them. This indicates that there is some sort of basis in reality to some extent to aim for what is good even if it’s limited.
reply

nathanielserra874
It is very very good, but I’m seeing where you’re doing the Einstein effect. You’re trying to create one stable system instead of understanding life is like quantum physics. You have many stable systems going on right next to each other, but I’ve also seen colonies and clans that do not have an alpha, but have a group of betas that service the alpha. So it could be whatever the colony and then there’s also female colonieswere the alphas are on the perimeter. So there’s many different complex versions of colonies just besides the atypical ape style colony.
reply

jacquelineraner14
Seriously don't think male lions are in charge of that setup. It looks more like he's kept from being allowed to hunt or even get taught to hunt forcing male lions into a life or death competition while the female's are only willing to feed 1 male. He eats first because he can't feed himself any other way. It's maybe time to revise the way we look at evolution as something that's not survival of the fittest until there needs to be competition and this is not inherent in animals what is inherent is multiply and that causes resource competition
reply

tankish1529
Older Millennial here. When I was a kid, fascism was a leftest ideology. Libertarianism was a far right ideology. It was one line. Monarchy was the furthest left you could get beyond communism. It went from Monarchy (furthest left) to Anarchy (furthest right) the further you went to the right the less government control there was. I believe that the libertarian left (which imo is not a thing as you have to have government control in order to promote leftest policies) were the ones that came up with the quadrants.
reply

user-wk4ee4bf8g
We can believe very strongly in one thing, and then also believe something that contradicts it. Belief is rooted in emotion more than thought, and our emotions are not rational, sonneither are our beliefs. Religion is literally the collective making up of a a story and then believing in it and making it into a foundational element of your life and that of ypur community. It's completely absurd, but yet it also brings undeniable benefits to that community, like unity. Humanity is a big chaos puddle.
reply

EsotericAces
GSR. Yep sounds about right. My ex spent months pushing me into a relationship and when it didn't work out she lied about me and completely destroyed my life. She messaged me months later saying she was sorry and regretted lying but that didn't change one single thing, I'm still banned and hated by all the people and places I helped over (the years. People were willing to believe anything without asking any questions like how could a cripple do that RIP my livelihood because she felt spiteful.
reply

howardelkins7380
I contend we need a religion that can be appreciated and enacted as society’s driving force. ie. colonization of the solar system and beyond. However, to spread that message and minimize violence in its’ pursuit will require never before seen acquiescence from the ruling class and cooperation from tribes that have warred throughout ages. Even if it were ultimately achieved, the ruling class that is spawned will have offspring that forget they are answerable to their people.
reply

jameswhyte5094
England is a fascinating case example:
Pre roman celts: tribal anarchy
Roman period: authority
Post Roman: anglo saxon anarchy
Norman conquest: authority feudal
Peasant revolt -> glorious revolution: gradual move to constitutional monarchy
Glorious revolution: aristocracy
Post WW2: equality (welfare state)
The next transition will be after hyperinflation creates chaos and we need order once again. Maybe digital feudalism is next
reply

whatifalthist
I wouldn’t use the West’s ability to colonize other lands as an example of the West’s success. Imperialism is a flawed foreign policy which often requires heavily investing into military might instead of other important things like infrastructure, education, etc, and, empires often become over-encumbered anyway, leading to their downfall. Washington was right when he stated that the United States should stay out of foreign entanglements.
reply

zenothemeano4381
The tringle adds anarcho-capitalism despite never having really existed in practice but it's left-wing brother, anarcho-communism, a school of thought that has had significant influence across politics and has indeed had both existed independently and influenced other forms of government, some of which still currently exist, doesn't get included
To call this triangle biased would be an understatement. It's worse than the horseshoe
reply

cmd31220
Even without understanding the rationale behind either, you know that the triangle is a more accurate model than the compass through simple math. If you scale each axis from 1-10, then on the compass you can only have 100 possible positions. Whereas with a 3rd axis, you can now have 1000.
I know thats not how they work, im jist illustrating how each additional mesirment you use in a model exponentially increases the model's accuracy
reply

CrystaTiBoha
Left-right political spectrum explained:
Useful idiots for communists or satanists => left. Else: right.
Of course communism and satanism are decadent spinoffs of the Judeo-Christian tradition, so this 'spectrum' is most applicable to post-christian societies, and to those who took up these spinoffs due to affinity with traditional family type (exogamous communitarian.
reply

neddanison9202
I see a list of sundry books called a bibliography. I see assertions made with vague, sparse reference to these books. You make sweeping generalizations about human societies without mentioning primitive/hunter-gatherer societies or citing ethnographers. Your argument (if that's what it is) goes all over the place. It's hard to follow the thread here -- if there is one.
reply

Add a review, comment