ywang

TL;DR: Western liberalism, or liberal democracy, represents the empirically most effective system of government.

Western liberalism, or liberal democracy, encodes the political systems of most “western countries'' in North America and Europe. It has also spread to many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In recent years, the political system has become increasingly under doubt. The rise of anti-globalization populism and the growing social issues in leading liberal democracies, such as the U.S. and the UK, has fueled doubt about the practicality of the system. The rise of China seems to present an alternative and potentially more effective system. Liberal democracy seems increasingly obsolete.

That view of obsoleteness is definitively false. Many empirical studies have associated liberal democracy with economic development and stable security. Liberal democracies continue to occupy most of the most economically advanced countries in the world. Studies have also shown that liberal democracies are less likely to engage in war or face internal turmoil.

This evidence of stability and growth may seem contradictory to facts. Many liberal democracies have witnessed significant unrest and economic stagnation. The infamous and endless war by the U.S. looms large over this claim. However, a comparative conclusion requires a comparative approach. In other words, the growing issues in liberal democracies may come from an overall rise in instability everywhere. As long as liberal democracies perform better than others, they should remain the preferred system. Indeed, compared with many other countries, the unrest in the U.S. or the UK seems comparatively more manageable. Even the case of China fails to challenge the advantage of liberal democracies. When one complains of the endless war in the U.S, one should not forget China’s aggression in the Asia Pacific. When one sees more stability in China than in Western Europe, one should remember the drastic surveillance and oppression used to achieve that goal. When one compares the economic rise of China to the decline of the West, one must remember that the economic stagnation of the West does not represent the economic stagnation of liberal democracy. When looking at the economic rise of India, Nigeria, Taiwan, and many other countries with some degrees of liberal democracy, one realizes that China represents the exception rather than the rule.

Liberal democracy has its share of problems. Countries should never give up on attempting to enhance their systems and increase their competitiveness. However, characterizing liberal democracy as obsolete faces not only the challenges of values but also the lack of empirical evidence.

It also seems prudent to note that history has witnessed ages like this. Western liberalism, or just democracy in general, has come under comparable, if not more grave, threats from rising autocracies. Personally, I remain optimistic about the long-term future of Western liberalism. The concerning matter, in my opinion, should rather be: how much short-term damage will this age do before another liberal revival?

wTl;DR: Reparations have justifications in the ongoing and active harms done to marginalized communities.

Reparations have also become associated with historical injustices such as slavery (in the case of African Americans and Africans) or genocides (in the case of Native Americans). While opponents saw these atrocities as past events, many see contemporary implications for these incidents. The argument goes that incidents like slavery gave many marginalized groups an inherent disadvantage in American society. Such a disadvantage has hindered the development of these groups until today. While persuasive, this argument misses the point due to its passive characterization of harms to minority groups.

Slavery did not create racism. It merely represents the most famous and atrocious example of it. As W.E.B Du Bois argues, the very concept of race serves as a tool to reinforce inequality and segregation. Even as he and many other African Americans defeated arguments after arguments for racism, more simply emerged. Hence, one should not consider every discriminatory policy as an extension of slavery, but as a new and active attempt to inflict harm to marginalized groups through racism. For example, the U.S. government made the active decision to enact Jim Crow, to enact redlining, and to ignore police brutality.

The government and many people did not simply fail to resolve the legacy of racism through inaction. They promoted racism through active decisions and policy. Hence, the moral case for reparations should not revolve around the potential presence of historical injustice and present inaction. Instead, the present, clear, and active enforcement of racism in various forms should suggest a need for reparations.

For this reason, the world should pay slavery reparations.

I think there is a difference between "should" and "can". I share your concern about the specific mechanics of reparations. It seems fairly difficult, if not impossible, to give reparations to all the right people.

However, a moral case differs from a practical case. One can acknowledge the moral righteousness of reparations as well as the practical difficulty of doing so.

Additionally, reparations have not entered mainstream political discourses for a significant amount of time. It seem fair to say everyone, me included, still has a rather rudimentary understanding of it. Hence, perhaps more studies can reveal a practical and fair way of doing so, and one can keep an open mind about that.

Tl; Dr: bans on transgender women in sports are based on gender stereotypes

The fairness argument for banning transgender women from competitive sports has little scientific. Transgender women exhibit significant physical variations, in the same way as cisgender women. Depending on the time of the transition, some transgender women may not even have experienced male puberty. In general, the testosterone level in transgender women does not differ significantly from cisgender women after a year of estrogen therapy. [1] Therefore, the fairness argument bases itself more on established prejudice rather than scientific evidence.

The harm of the fairness argument, however, exists on a more fundamental level. Reducing the definition of women to the degree of physical strength invites gender stereotypes and policing. The practice bases the female identity on a lack of physical strength and disqualifies strong women as “too muscular.” If testosterone level determines fair competition, should we consider dividing female athletes into different testosterone classes to ensure true equality? Physical differences exist among women, cisgender or transgender. Isolating transgender women represents a subtle reinforcement of the stereotype of a weak woman. The practice hurts both transgender rights and gender equality.

For this reason, the fairness argument for the transgender athlete ban does not stand.

[1]. National Collegiate Athletic Association. 2011. "NCAA Inclusion Of Transgender Student-Athletes". National Collegiate Athletic Association. https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf.

[2]. Strangio, Chase, and Gabriel Arkles. 2020. "Four Myths About Trans Athletes, Debunked". American Civil Liberty Union, , 2020. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/.

Just out of curiosity, where does the 40% statistics come from? I would love to see a source.

Herbert Hoover was not the man of the moment. However, he was an incredibly skilled politician who cared for the country. He played a big role in the economic development of Europe today: his excellent execution of the Marshall's Plan was nowhere near an easy feat.

I believe a different comment addressed the practical difficulty of getting an ID. I would like to address a different point. In democracy, voting is a right with very few restrictions (age being one of the few). Caring about politics should not serve as a condition for voting rights.

Many surveys have indicated that the vast majority of Americans have quite apolitical views, but obviously they should have the right to vote. If a country restricts voting rights to those interested in politics, its political representation will overly favor those educated and wealthy (since they are more likely to have the time to care about politics).

This argument does not mean that one should not care about politics. Ideally, voters should pay attention to politics. I also agree that sometimes a lack of understanding in politics probably cause voters to make bad decisions. However, when compared with the alternative, a scenario where political understanding is mandatory for voting rights, I would argue the current situation compares far less harmful.

Adoption agencies often screen prospective parents regardless of their sexualities. Hence, I would imagine that issue should be promptly addressed during that stage.

Beyond the practical aspect, anecdotal evidence does not constitute strong arguments. Homosexual couples are, in fact, divorcing at lower rates than heterosexual ones.

Pollution and species extinction are part of problems of climate change.

In terms of the responsibility of countries, it is a shared one. However, it seems unfair to say that "Asia and Africa" are bigger polluters than, for example, the United States. While some less developed countries produce more pollutions in total, one must also consider the population. The United States is a big polluter especially considering its relatively low population. Hence, it is entirely unfair to compare pollutions by country without taking a per capita perspective. The same logic applies when thinking about the level of wealth of a country. Luxembourg has a real GDP of $71.1 billion, and Ethiopia has one of $95.91 billion. By the logic of your statement, Ethiopia is richer than Luxembourg. However, that is clearly false once one considers the per capita wealth of both countries.

Moral judgment cannot stand out of contexts. While the choice of hairstyle should constitute nothing but a matter of personal choice, our societal context today says otherwise. Thus, it is culturally and morally offensive for white people to wear dreadlocks in the contemporary context.

Colonial legacies serve as the context for the freedom of hairstyles. Historically many groups have adopted dreadlocks. However, to use this line of reasoning to detach dreadlocks from black culture ignores the most prominent historical context around this topic. During the age of slavery, hairstyles represented an important expression of freedom and pride for black slaves, when they had little bodily autonomy. Consequently, slave owners shaved slaves’ heads as a means of humiliation. After the abolishment of slavery, African Americans had to alter their hair to mimic the typical styles of white people to better assimilate into a white-dominated society. Hairstyles such as dreadlocks did not become prominent until the age of the Civil Rights Movement. [1] Thus, hairstyle and the freedom around it have deep roots in black culture and the fight for racial justice. It goes without saying that in our society today, such a context bears much more weight than that of the Egyptians or the Vikings (two groups that also used to adopt dreadlocks). [2] Thus, a historical justification for whitewashing dreadlocks represents only a cherry-picking exercise of history.

Even today, hairstyles such as dreadlocks bear an association with race, and more importantly racism. Many black people have suffered workplace discrimination due to dreadlocks. Many workplaces have banned dreadlocks as an “unprofessional hairstyle”. Job recruiters also tend to prefer candidates with a more “clean-cut” physical appearance. [3] This practice disproportionately disadvantages African Americans and forces them to change their natural hair. In a related court case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) considers this practice racist. The concept of race, they argue, includes characteristics associated with it, such as dreadlocks (the conservative U.S. Court of Appeal in the 11th Circuit eventually sided against the EEOC.). [1] If dreadlocks bear no particular association with African Americans, why is it used as a tool to discriminate against them? What happened to the freedom of hairstyle for those discriminated against in the workplace? Thus, it seems bizarre for white people to advocate for their dreadlocks as a personal choice when African Americans face workplace discrimination over theirs.

Contexts and power dynamics matter. Cultural appropriation does not occur when one group uses something from another one. It occurs when the group with power can express the culture of a disadvantaged group more freely than the disadvantaged group itself. Hairstyles such as dreadlocks are not color-blind. They represent, symbolically, and sometimes literally, the struggle of African Americans in today’s society. So long as racism and colonial legacy matter, hairstyles will continue to bear that representation.

These arguments do not call for banning white people from wearing dreadlocks, which would constitute an infringement on personal freedom. Rather, they lay out the moral insensitivity, willful or not, of such a practice.

For these reasons, it is culturally and morally offensive for white people to wear dreadlocks in the contemporary context.

[1]. Wilkinson, A.B. 2016. "No Dreadlocks Allowed". The Atlantic, , 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/no-dreadlocks-allowed/506270/.

[2]. Grinberg, Emanuella. 2016. "Dreadlocks On White Folks: Things To Consider". CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/living/white-dreadlocks-cultural-appropriation-feat/index.html.

[3]. McGregor, Jena. 2019. "More States Are Trying To Protect Black Employees Who Want To Wear Natural Hairstyles At Work". The Washington Post, , 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/19/more-states-are-trying-protect-black-employees-who-want-wear-natural-hairstyles-work/.

From what I can understand, your main argument seems to be that something as normal as hairstyles should not matter. I agree. The problem is that society does not. While dreadlocks are not a patent for African Americans, they have become associated with the group and have served as a vehicle for oppression. There are active federal court cases where African Americans received workplace discrimination due to dreadlocks (one almost reached the Supreme Court recently). That is why people should care about the history of dreadlocks, because they are not history. Oppressions against African Americans through hairstyles started during slavery and continues today. One cannot proclaim dreadlocks as culturally neutral when there are so many relevant political and historical contexts to it.

I agree with you that hairstyles should not be that big of a matter. I agree with you that we should push back on the association between hairstyles and specific races. However, I disagree with you method. The approach should not be for white Americans to just do it without regards to hair discrimination. The approach should rather be to protect African Americans from hair discrimination due to dreadlocks. When African Americans no longer face being fired for dreadlocks, then perhaps we can say society no longer sees dreadlocks as an exclusive style to a specific race.

TL;DR: The crisis management skill of dictatorships depends heavily on the type of crisis.

To start with, research has discovered little correlation between the degree of democracy and the success of Covid-19 responses. The examples of Singapore and Vietnam may very well come down to the fresh memories of the SARS crisis. Additionally, the pandemic is not yet over and the jury is very much out. Some countries, such as the UK and US, performed poorly in lockdown measures but did well with vaccine rollouts.

Beyond the current pandemic, the crisis management skills of dictatorships depend highly on the definition of crises. Dictatorships can often act fast to an emerging external event due to their ability to bypass democratic norms. However, no all crises depend on fast responses. Some crises require deliberations and civil discussions. For example, the climate crisis has seen more significant responses among democratic countries due to their responsiveness to grassroots climate activism. Democracies have also performed better in handling geopolitical conflicts and avoiding wars, likely due to their more deliberative and cautious nature.

Furthermore, the essence of dictatorships lies in the priority of the interests of the ruling class. Hence, if a crisis does not concern the core interests of the dictator regimes, they are much more likely than democratic governments to ignore the crises. In fact, many humanitarian crises against minorities come directly from these dictatorships, chief among them the genocides currently ongoing in China.

Hence, the crisis management skills of dictatorships depend significantly on the nature of the crises. At the end of the day, effective crisis management requires more than speed.

Should we then use human rights law to construct a relatively coherent international standard for the expression of morality? A constructed concept can be as significant as a natural one. One can argue that due to to increased international exchange, human rights law should become universal even though it has a constructed nature.

TL;DR: In some cases, one can see the emotional cause behind the rioting. However, rioting serves as an ineffective strategy to initiate change.

Studies have shown that non-violent protests tend to produce more effective social change, regardless of the political systems. In fact, people have the tendency to support social movements that focus on coalition building, outreach, and high levels of internal organization. Rioting represents the opposite of all that.

One can compare the aftermath of two different police brutality incidents. While the death of George Floyd instigated some levels of violence, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo, arguably saw more chaotic aftermath. While the Floyd death stimulated a national discussion on race and policing, the Ferguson incident turned Missouri far more GOP-leaning.

Hence, rioting serves as a suboptimal and often counterproductive means of initiating changes.

TL;DR: All lives matter represents a racist dog whistle.

Words cannot exist without their contexts. Many phrases may appear agreeable on the surface but become offensive when used in particular contexts. All lives matter represent a prominent example of the importance of contexts.

All lives matter come as a reaction to BLM. When taken alone, all lives matter sounds like a kind and egalitarian phrase. However, one must bear in mind that the phrase only came as a response to Black Lives Matter. In other words, All Lives Matter is not defined by its independent ideology but its rejection of Black Lives Matter. Hence, saying ‘all lives” in this context only serves as a way to muddle the focus on black lives, which are being killed at three times the rate by police than the lives of other people. This comparison does not call for an oppression Olympics. Instead, it stresses a need for black lives to come into public attention. The emergence of “all lives” in this context only intends to derail that necessary effort. In other words, all lives matter exists not to advocate for all lives but to distract the genuine issue of police brutality.

The slogan all lives matter continues the long tradition of political dog-whistling. In other words, this phrase represents a harmless packaging of a racist idea. That nature means the harmless phrase has taken on an offensive substance. The phrase inner city did not become problematic until the context of white flight. The word globalist did not become problematic until its anti-semitism undertones. In the same way, all lives matter did not become problematic until it became a counter-movement against black lives matter.

Hence, “don’t you think all lives matter” represents a misguided question when assessing the all lives matter movement. Of course, I believe that the lives of all people matter. However, that belief has nothing to do with the all lives matter movement, so I can support one without supporting the other. In the same way, I can hope America continues as a great country without putting on a MAGA hat. In politics, a phrase often has meaning beyond its surface.

Do I think the lives of all people matter? Yes. Does that mean I support the all lives matter movement? For the reasons stated above, no.

TL;DR: Protests represent an instrumental tool to initiate social changes. However, protests themselves do not necessitate political success. The formats of protests also have an impact on their outcomes.

Protests represent a commonplace and important means of political expression. Its effectiveness, on the other hand, represents a complicated matter. While they have some meaningful impact on public opinion, these factors alone do not necessitate success. Furthermore, the specific forms of protest also matter in their effectiveness.

Protests can have a meaningful impact on public awareness and opinion. Studies have shown that protests can help draw public attention and raise the salience of an issue. On some less divided topics, they can also tilt public opinions in the favor of the protestors. Of course, public opinion does not always matter in initiating political changes, and its effectiveness in less democratic countries is highly compromised. However, public opinion still represents an important, while not sufficient, factor in political change. In that regard, protests do have a real-life impact.

The form of protests matters. Based on research conducted in the United States, political scientist Lisa Mueller finds that left-leaning groups in America are more likely to support coalition-building advocacy work. In other words, a political movement that encompasses organizations with different but non-contradictory goals is more likely to draw support.

Do protests work? The answer to this question depends on a few other factors. How would one define “work”? How are these protests being conducted?

TL;DR: The divided public opinions and the multiple potential choices make statehood for Puerto Rico a complicated issue. Ultimately, the rule of democratic self-determination should prevail above all else.

The potential statehood for Puerto Rico brings far more complications and nuances than the statehood for the District of Columbia. Hence, the right path forward must prioritize the opinions of the residents in Puerto Rico.

The public opinion on statehood has divided the residents of Puerto Rico. The territory has so far held six referendums on the issue. While statehood won for the last three times, the winning margins have consistently stayed small and the voter participation rates have largely been low. Hence, the will of the majority of residents on the future of Puerto Rico is far from clear.

Moreover, statehood and status quo do not represent the only options for Puerto Rico. Past referendums have included options such as a modified commonwealth status and a “free association” with the United States. Hence, instead of a dichotomy, Puerto Rico faces a spectrum of options on the closeness of its association with the United States.

All costs and benefits aside, the residents of Puerto Rico must determine the future of the territory. Before the will of the people has become clear, the debate of the future of Puerto Rico cannot conclude.

TL;DR: The legalization of organ trade does not resolve the various ethical issues around these transactions.

The legalization of organ trade represents an attempt at privatization where it should not. The ethical concerns of organ trade would not disappear with legalization. Instead, it would give legitimacy to an aggregation of inequality and harm.

On the demand side, organ trade associates the value of life with money. Currently, the demand for organ transplants exceeds the supply. However, it seems unclear how privatization would solve the issue. Legitimizing the issue would likely have a marginal impact on the supply of organs. Instead, the scarcity will drive up the prices of organs in this hypothetical market. Considering the often life-saving nature of organ transplants, the high prices would allow wealthy people exclusive access to preserve their life. This situation raises the problem of medical equity, an issue already severe with the high prices of many other medicines. One can advocate for privatization as well as a price ceiling for organ trades. However, price ceiling measures often lead to scarcity, meaning that the legalization would not improve the access to organ transplants.

On the supply side, information asymmetry compromises the autonomy of the sellers. While a person can theoretically consent to trade their organs for money, in practice the consent seems compromised. Most organ sellers are economically vulnerable groups in low-income countries. They likely do to have access to information regarding the long-term health consequences of these transactions. The legalization of the process would encourage selling organs without the necessary information to make a rational decision.

For these reasons, organ trades should not become legalized.

TL;DR: The constructed nature of nations should not reduce its significance and inevitability.

Much like most concepts in politics, nations, and nationalities represent socially constructed ideas. However, that statement alone should not reduce the relevance and significance of the concept of nations. Furthermore, the construction of the concept seems almost inevitable in the process of human development.

Constructed or not, nations matter. One can hail the progress of globalization and internationalism as much as one desires. However, they cannot deny the importance of nations and national sovereignty in politics or daily life. Almost all nations continue to see sovereignty as paramount, and many conflicts have arisen around this idea. The nationality and residency of a person can determine their resources and standards of living to a great extent. Hence, to understate the importance of nations due to their constructed nature seems entirely inappropriate.

Furthermore, the construction of the concept of nations seems inevitable. Dating back to some of the earliest civilizations, almost every culture developed some understanding of sovereignty. Almost all invented some ideas of us v.s. them based on geographical locations. Hence, one can conceive of few practical alternatives to our current concept of nations that can guide human interactions.

The debate of the constructed nature of nations has philosophical significance. Its practical implication, on the other hand, seems limited and irrelevant.

TL;DR; Some of the failures of the Obama presidency should not reflect on Obama himself.

Barack Obama had many setbacks and failed promises throughout his eight years in power. However, at least some of his failed agenda came down to the gridlocks of the GOP-held Senate.

The fight over the ACA represented only the start of obstructionism among the Senate GOP. The party showed no intention for any bipartisanship or compromises. Instead, they celebrated their intense partisan battles against Obama's agenda. The problem only worsened after the GOP took control of Congress and effectively blocked all policies from the Obama Administration. The ideologically exclusive and extreme tendency likely also paved the way for the rise of Donald Trump.

The partisanship does not come from Obama. He did not vary significantly from past presidents in seeking compromises. The change came from the GOP Party that was effectively kidnapped by populism and the Tea Party movement.

These reasons do not excuse all of Obama’s failures. He could have achieved many things with his executive power but chose not to, such as the military involvement in Afghanistan. However, the particularly ideological nature of the GOP under Obama should at least bring some nuances to the judgment of his presidency.

TL;DR: Mandatory voting can reduce voter suppression and incentivize voter participation.

Mandatory voting has been proven to stimulate democratic participation and, as a result, the strength of democracy. The idea will likely become more crucial after the 2020 U.S. general election. The perpetuation of the “election fraud” lie by Donald Trump and his GOP Party has incentivized various states to pass voter suppression laws. Since many politicians have tried to copy Trump’s playbook over the past, it seems likely some will try to spread the same lie for political gains. Mandatory voting can make it significantly more difficult for politicians to take away people’s voting rights or suppress the participation of specific voters. Hence, the issue of voting has taken on a particular significance at this time.

Beyond the need of the moment, mandatory voting has produced some impressive benefits to democracies. Not only does the policy increase voter participation across the board, it significantly reduces the class or racial gaps in voting. Hence, the overall electorate becomes closer to the general population due to mandatory voting. However, the benefit of the policy does not stop at participation. It often has ripple effects through entire democratic systems. While many have objected to the policy in fear of “ignorant voters,” evidence has shown that mandatory voting increases people’s interest in and knowledge of politics. Political parties become much more focused on substantial policy positions and ideologies rather than clientele machine politics.

Mandatory voting represents a stimulus to democracy. Its importance has only increased during our time. For these reasons, voting should be mandatory.

TL;DR: Money can indirectly buy happiness, but only to a certain point.

Can money buy happiness? Not directly since happiness is not a product one can purchase at a store. However, money can unlock many resources for happiness. To explain this idea, one must understand a few concepts.

The first concept is budget constraints. Budget constraints dictate one’s ability to consume. Basically, it represents the products one can buy with all their money. The concept is indifferent to individual preferences. It does not matter what kind of consumer tendency one has. How much one likes apples does not change how many apples one can buy. However, the constraints will determine how many apples one will buy, especially considering one will want to buy other things with their budget. When budget constraints increase, in other words when one person has more money, they can buy more utilities with their money. More utility means more happiness. Hence, preferences do not really matter in terms of the utility buying power of money. With more money, one can realize utilities in their preferred ways.

What about matters such as love or family? One cannot just buy these things. Well no. However, these things all take time, and money can buy time. The budget constraints not only dictate one’s buying decisions, but also their labor decisions. A person with more money can choose to substitute labor with more free time. They can then spend the time with their loved ones to cultivate their non-material preferences. Hence, when one establishes the connection between money and time, money becomes indirectly but strongly related to happiness.

However, the marginal utility of money becomes less useful as one becomes richer. This concept goes up the name of diminishing return. When one already has an abundance of a product, an additional one becomes less valuable to them. Imagine buying your first laptop. You likely will put thoughts into your choices since a laptop is very useful. Now imagine buying your 11th laptop. You may not care too much about your choices since you already have ten others. Hence, all products become less marginally valuable as their base number goes up. By extension, the more money one has, the less valuable an extra dollar will be for them. Imagine the difference between having no money and having $100 million. The lifestyle difference cannot be more steep. Now imagine the difference between having $100 million and having $200 million. A difference of lifestyle may still exist but pales in comparison with the previous one. Hence, as one gets more money, the more it becomes less useful and less efficient in leading to happiness.

For this reason, money can buy happiness to an extent.

TL;DR: Breaking up the U.S. represents an assault on the historical strength of the American institutions.

The polarization of the American public has accelerated by geographical, racial, class, and partisan lines. As a result, a minor resurgence of cal for secession has surfaced. A Texas secession bill has even been introduced on the floor of the State legislatures. Aside from its losing track record, a movement to dissolve the U.S. union represents an ineffective and destructive solution to our current problems.

To start with, dissolving the Union does not solve the ongoing polarization in the U.S., Unlike the civil war era, the geographical divide in the U.S. is not one between the south and the north, but rather one between rural and urban areas. Take the example of the deep blue state of California. Democratic candidate Joe Biden won the state by a margin of 63.5% to 34.3% against incumbent Republican Donald Trump. That number does not mean California does not have pockets of red areas. In the rural and sparsely populated Modoc County, Trump won 71.6% votes. Compare this number to Los Angeles County, where Biden won 71% of votes. The opposite phenomenon exists when one looks at deeply red states. As a result, a dissolve of the American Union by state lines does nothing to fix the divisive state of the nation.

Furthermore, the divide of our time may not be as disastrous as one may think. James Madison, one of the founding fathers, actually sees diverged and diverse interests as a strength of the U.S. system. In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison made the case that diverse interests ensure the absolute triumph of none. In other words, due to the diverse nature of the Union, no particular group would find it easy to become the majority and rule tyrannically. In other words, the diverse nature of the American Union and the diverged interests serve as guardrails against a populist uprising. While the effectiveness of the guardrails may come under question, they have at least shown some results. Blue states like Massachusetts and New York have managed to block some of the most extreme policies from the Trump Administration, such as the attempt to abolish the ACA.

The American Union represents an enduring and intricate system of checks and balances. The diverse interests of the American public have induced polarization but guarded against some of the more extreme forms of populism. Dissolving it for an untenable goal represents a misguided and dangerous effort. Many have tried. All have failed. It has long passed time to bury the idea to destroy the Union.

E Pluribus Unum. For this reason, the United States should not be broken up.

TL;DR: Ethics should not be a matter of black and white. What is not the most ethical action is not necessarily unethical. In the case of having children, one can argue that not having children represents the most ethical choice. However, that judgment does not make having children unethical.

Climate change should not become an entirely personal responsibility. Having children does not itself exponentially increase one’s carbon footprint. The carbon footprint increase comes from the consumption related to having children. In other words, parents do not necessarily choose for their children to have a carbon-heavy lifestyle. They simply do not have a choice in that matter. Ethics tend to show kindness to people without a choice. Particularly, in this case, one can have a far more primary agent that bears the blame: our overall carbon-heavy production system. One should not translate the fault of the entire production system to every consumer. Eating meat is not unethical. The industrialized food production system is. Using plastic is not unethical. The prevalence of plastics in consumer products is. In the same way, calling having children unethical represents an unfair transfer of responsibility to individuals without a choice. Forcing people to choose between having children and caring for the environment is problematic. One should have the right to do both. When they cannot, one should at least not receive unfavorable ethical judgment for a forced choice.

Adopting children may favor more ethical than having children, but that does not make the latter unethical. In ethical judgments, stakeholders do not all share the same say in a situation. When it comes to having children, the parents represent the most direct and primary stakeholders. For the children waiting for the adoption, their interests are only indirectly impacted. The primary stakeholders, the parents, are not making active harmful decisions. They do not have children to hurt the interests of those waiting for adoption. It just so happens that those children’s interests are indirectly hurt by their choice. Whether that constitutes an unethical decision represents a complicated debate. I incline to say no because in most ethical judgments related to reproduction we seem to prioritize the individual rights of parents. Take the most famous example of abortion. Pro-choice groups emphasize the rights of women to decide beyond the influences of other people, such as the women’s family members and religious pressures. The argument goes that the women have the most primary stake in this decision beyond others indirectly impacted. By the same logic, should we not respect the choice of the primary agents (the parents) over those indirectly impacted (the orphans).

To clarify, I do not intend to argue against the premise that not having children represents the most ethical choice of all things considered. Instead, I dispute the thinking that such a reality makes having children unethical. In other words, having children represents an ethically neutral choice. In ethical judgment, deviation away from the best choice does not immediately imply ethical choices. In this argument, I have shown that little malintent or primary blames is associated with having children. Hence, having children does not constitute an unethical choice.

TL;DR: Standardized testing represents a poor predictor of student performance. Its emphasis exacerbates social inequality.

Standardized testing represents a major component of the college application process in the United States and many other countries. However, its effectiveness and its interactions with inequality threaten its legitimacy in higher education admissions.

Standardized testing does not predict students’ academic performance. Studies have shown that students with higher standardized testing scores are not more likely to perform better in college. High school GPAs represent a much better predictor. Many reasons likely contributed to the lack of accurate prediction. To start with, many students may simply perform particularly badly in test-taking environments, especially considering the significant hype around SAT or ACT scores. Furthermore, standardized testing overwhelmingly measures some of the students’ skills, in areas such as calculation, memorization, and pattern recognition. Many other skills that are crucial for academic success are not measured by these tests.

Perhaps more importantly, standardized testing perpetuates social inequality. Since these tests require practices from the students’ side, factors such as private tutoring and school quality become especially important in determining testing scores. As a result, students from more wealthy families are more likely to access these resources for success. Low-income students and many minority students become disadvantaged in the process.

For these reasons, standardized testing should be abolished.

TL:DR: Cancelling inheritance tax would benefit the most wealthy people at the expense of all others. A reasonable inheritance tax would serve as funding for many government programs.

Inheritance tax represents an ideal means of economic redistribution when levied appropriately. More specifically, an inheritance tax on the most wealthy people could give the government more revenues without burdening the vast majority of taxpayers. Since the inheritance tax focuses on wealth and assets, it could more effectively target the wealthiest individuals in society.

In the United States, inheritance tax comes in the form of the estate tax on assets. The current system of estate tax already gives too many loopholes for exploitation, and an outright repeal can have disastrous outcomes. A proposal to abolish the tax is estimated to cost the Federal Government $151 billion. To amend the fiscal gap, the government would have to either cut essential programs or levy more taxes on less wealthy individuals. Hence, this repeal would increase financial burdens on the government and make the U.S. federal tax system more regressive. Furthermore, the repeal would raise issues of racial equity. Currently, 9 out of every 10 households subject to the estate tax are white. Hence, the repeal would benefit exclusively wealthy white individuals and increase racial inequality.

Studies have shown that a reasonable inheritance tax represents an effective tool to reduce wealth inequality. According to the Tax Policy Center, a 35% inheritance tax on cumulative taxes beyond $1.5 million could create $600 million over eight years for the federal government. The revenues represent extra sources for government funding and do not burden working-class Americans. Furthermore, the tax could incentivize wealthy individuals to divide their inheritances to more people, reducing wealth concentrations.

Overall, inheritance tax represents an effective and reasonable way to reduce wealth inequality and increase government funding. For these reasons, the inheritance tax should be repealed.

Tl;DR: Legacy admissions give more advantages to wealthy students and take resources away from disadvantaged ones.

Higher education institutions in the United States stand as global outlier in allowing legacy preferences in admissions decisions. This mechanism allows children of college alums to have an advantage in the competitive admissions process. Studies have shown that legacy preferences can significantly boost a student’s chances or admissions by as much as 23%.

Legacy preferences disadvantage low-income and minority students. The mechanism ties college admissions to family backgrounds. Wealthy and white students are more likely to have well-educated parents. Hence, their inherent advantages will also manifest in the college admissions process. Furthermore, legacy preferences are not viable to many first-generation college students and descendants of recent immigrants. When comparing family educational histories across different racial groups, almost half of white students have parents with higher education, compared to less than a quarter of minority students. As a result, the mechanism remains largely a tool for privileged, wealthy, and white students to enhance their social status.

The effect of legacy preferences is visible in reality. When John Hopkins University abolished the process, the college saw a drastic shake-up in their enrolled students. The number of Pell-Grant eligible students went up by 10%. The overall student body became more diverse and competitive. Therefore, the abolition of legacy preferences represents an effective way to promote equitable educational opportunities.

For this reason, legacy admissions should be abolished.

TL:DR: In public schools, at least, the teaching of creationism must not become an indoctrination of religion.

The teaching of creationism represents a debate beyond nature science or philosophy. While the word on the surface only refers to a belief in intelligent design as human origin, in practice, it always comes with a religious context. In other words, it seems impossible to teach creationism without involving some religious beliefs. In such a case, this teaching requires a discussion of the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state represents a crucial political concept. It isolates civil life away from religion and avoids the rise of a state-backed religion. As the most famous example of this principle, the United States adopts the separation of church and state in its constitution. As a result, no government-funded organization, public schools included, can have religious instructions. The U.S. The Supreme Court has affirmed the religious-netural nature of public schools in many cases. However, some justices have voiced support for the “teaching of religion”. For example, one can teach the bible as literature, offer classes on comparative religious studies, or teach the role of religion in civil society. Overall, while public schools do not have to shun religion entirely, they must prove their handling of religion is neutral rather than supportive towards a specific faith.

In many cases, the separation principle has directly applied to the teaching of creationism. In Edwards v. Aguillard, The U.S. Supreme Court banned a Louisiana law from mandating creationism as an alternative theory in biology classes. Hence, any teaching of creationism should not happen in a natural science class. It should not be promoted as a “fact” but rather only as an “opinion.” Furthermore, public schools must not show any endorsement of the opinion.

Overall, while public schools do not have to shut creationism out of their teaching, in practice, they must follow strict restrictions in doing so to maintain the separation of church and state.

TL;DR: Multiculturalism and diversity bring economic vitality.

Multiculturalism advocates for the coexistence of people in one society. The concept sees diversity as inherent strength. As a result, the concept often leads to proponents of increasing diversity within a community or a company. While sometimes associated with chaotic results, multiculturalism brings vitality to the economy.

The fundamental economic strength of multiculturalism comes from its ability to attract diverse populations. Whether in a company or a community, diversity means strength. A diverse company would find it easy to attract global talents and thus become more innovative. Diverse populations do not just contribute to the workforce. They also create more opportunities for other people. Immigrants are more likely to become business owners and self-employed. The creation of these new businesses can improve or revive many local economies and potentially provide employment opportunities for more people.

Multiculturalism creates diversity. Diversity is dynamic and chaotic. While these traits carry some negative elements, the opposite of them, stagnation or monoculture, does not lead to economic development and opportunities.

For this reason, multiculturalism is beneficial.

TL;DR: The relationship between globalization and inequality remains more complicated than portrayed.

Many here have argued that globalization increased economic inequality. That argument seems very plausible in theory as multinational corporations become richer, more monopolistic, and more exploitative. However, correlation does not equal causation. Globalization may not serve as the main factor of growing inequality, since many other variables exist.

One main reason for growing inequality comes down to corporate executive control. Studies have shown that many corporate CEOs have actively sought to secure more favorable contracts and unreasonably increase their pays over the years. This trend has resulted in CEOs getting over-compensated. The gap has accumulated into growing inequality over the years. This factor does not seem directly associated with globalization, since CEOs would likely have sought these compensations regardless.

The second reason concerns the rate of returns. This argument sees some high-level employees as fundamentally more productive than before and thus deserving of disproportionately high pay. Globalization does play a role in this argument. It expands the market so skilled workers can reach more customers. As a result, their labor becomes deserving of more rewards. However, even under this framework, more significant variables exist. Technology-related skills stand out as the primary ones. Without technological proficiency, multinational companies and their employees would not have the capacity to reach the globalized market. Hence, globalization represents only one piece of this puzzle.

Has globalization contributed to growing inequality? Likely yes, but the jury may still be out. Furthermore, if more significant variables do exist, blaming inequality on globalization seems entirely misguided and simplistic.

TL;DR: Freedom of speech may seem chaotic, but its benefits far outweighs the costs.

Freedom of speech serves as a fundamental tool for other civil and political rights. It allows for social change facilitated by the exchange and amplification of different ideas.

Due to its mostly unrestricted nature, freedom of speech does come with its drawbacks sometimes. Freedom of speech often allows hateful and false information. It has also become a right-wing talking point on many topics, such as race and sexuality. It often seems frustrating to see many use their freedom of speech in irresponsible ways.

However, I would like to invite critics of freedom of speech to imagine the alternative. Would the civil rights movement have been possible with the robust freedom of speech in the United States? Would grass-roots organizing and impartial news media have been possible without freedom of speech? The obvious answer is no. In these cases, many vulnerable groups would probably have been worse off than they are today. Every society has its faults and wrongs. Freedom of speech cannot fix them alone, but it provides for such a possibility.

Freedom of speech allows for hateful speech. However, without the freedom of speech, the hate would likely not remain just speech.

TL;DR: Numbers don’t lie, and they suggest the demise of the American Dream.

American dream means robust social mobility. The concept was never perfect. At the peak of its time, it still excluded many vulnerable groups and racial minorities. Despite its aspirational nature, American Dreams represented a live possibility once upon a time. No more. Statistical trends have reflected growing wealth concentrations and barriers out of poverty.

Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated. Back in 1965, a CEO received 29 times the salary of an average worker. In 2020, that ratio has ballooned to 320 to 1. In 1984, upper-income households controlled 60% of the total aggregated wealth in the country. Today, they control 73%. Ever since the Great Recession, only the richest people in this country have seen their wealth grow.

On the other end of the spectrum, barriers to economic security have only grown taller. Despite the growing inequality, the U.S. federal minimum wage has not increased since 2009 and remains significantly lower than other developed countries. Even though skilled labor has seen growing employment opportunities, they largely remain untenable for many due to the skyrocketing cost of education. Over the past 20 years, private and public universities in the United States have increased their tuition by 165% and 144% respectively.

As the two sides pull further ahead, numbers do not tell an optimistic story of the once-promising American Dream.

TL;DR: The question is not whether there is free will. Instead, one should ask whether humans are better off believing in free will.

One can make a pragmatic case for at least the belief in free will. The argument has two pillars. First, the debate of free will remains open and forced. Second, one is better off believing in free will than not.

Free will represents a necessary leap of faith. One cannot dispute that free will remains an open question. No one can prove or disprove free will. However, one cannot go about their life without a formed belief. Free will represents a momentous and existential question, one that will impact one’s decision-making in every circumstance. Therefore, “not having an opinion” does not constitute a legitimate stance. Even if one does not see sufficient evidence for either side, one has to at least operationally go by either a yes or a no.

From a practical standpoint, yes represents the better answer. A fully deterministic view appears detrimental from a personal and societal standpoint. On a personal level, the lack of free will removes emotions from events. If one is destined to succeed, one should not feel happy or strive for achievements. Alternatively, if misfortunes are inevitable, one does not have to feel sad or try again. Such a passive life attitude represents a depressing one. Moreover, the lack of incentive to self-mobilization translates to societal loss. Most of our progress comes from individual achievements. Without the individual drive for fame, our society will cease to witness more advancements or inventions. Therefore, free will represents a practically good belief. That utilitarian good does not make the case for free will as a fact, but it does for free will as a belief.

For these reasons, one should believe in free will.

TL;DR: Marriage serves crucial and practical purposes in modern society, beyond just love.

Love serves as a necessary but not sufficient condition for marriage. From love to marriage, a relationship takes on far more responsibilities and rights. These social mechanisms of marriage impact some of the most basic functions of society. Without marriage, love is just love, deprived of its social roles.

Marriages allow someone to become a socially recognized family member of another. While that characterization does not sound particularly romantic, it serves significant purposes. Most governments give family members of a person many significant responsibilities and rights. Most of the family relationships base themselves on blood ties. Marriages represent a significant exception. It extends these social mechanisms to someone not previously related. A wife can visit her husband when he is sick in the hospital. A girlfriend cannot necessarily do so with a boyfriend. A husband can inherit the wealth of his deceased wife without an explicit will, a boyfriend cannot. A marriage certificate serves as a compelling reason for a foreigner to enter a country to visit their partner during Covid-19 border closure. A Facebook status of “in a relationship” cannot. In some countries, only a married couple can adopt or raise children.

Love is beautiful. To ensure the right to practice love, people get married. One may argue that perhaps marriages should not serve as the passport to these social rights and responsibilities, to begin with. However, it seems difficult to imagine having every romantic partner share so many social roles together (imagine becoming liable to someone’s debt after going on a third date). Hence, marriages serve as an important tool to attach social roles to emotional ones.

For this reason, marriage is not outdated.

TL;DR: Our current practice of identity politics only works in certain cultural and political environments.

Identity politics broadly refers to the emphasis of one’s marginalized identity in political discourses. In practice, many politicians have tried to utilize it to appeal to racial minorities and other marginalized groups. A candidate can emphasize their own identity as one from marginalized groups to consolidate support. Alternatively, they can choose to emphasize the interests of said groups or hire people from those groups. While simplistic, the practice represents a strong incentive for politicians to appeal to vulnerable groups and consider their interests.

That said “interests” can take different forms in different contexts. All societies and countries have racism or other types of discrimination. However, these discriminations come from different historical and cultural contexts and symbolize power imbalance between different groups. Oppression against black people does not take the same form in the U.S. or the Netherlands, simply because the two cultures have different conceptions of race. While categorically the same, they do not represent the same problems. Therefore, identity politics must take different approaches to address these issues.

However, our current practice of identity politics relies too much on American culture. Often associated with racism, the United States became the birthplace of identity politics. While controversial and complicated, the idea has brought some benefits. Joe Biden won the U.S. presidency thanks to strong support from the African American communities. In return, he appointed several African Americans to many cabinet positions and nominated three black female judges to U.S. circuit courts. The same practice has mostly backfired in many other places. For example, a bitter infighting broke among several leftist politicians in France over the practice of identity politics, when they are seeking unity ahead of the 2022 presidential election. France does not conceive race in the same way America does. As a result, racism takes a different form and requires a different type of identity politics.

Identity politics represents a viable and realistic way to raise the voices of the unheard. However, it must incorporate specific cultural contexts to become effective. The current American-centric way of identity politics will only backfire in other places.

For this reason, identity politics can, but will not necessarily, destroy democracy. If practiced right, its benefits outweigh the costs.

Dating apps have turned love into a marketplace, just like it has aspired to be and should be

Dating apps promote the idea of options. It seeks to maximize a person’s reach in the dating market and allows more efficient selections. While that idea seems contradictory to the traditional image of love, it should be seen as an improvement.

By market, one means options. Dating apps allow people to compare different potential love interests at the same time in a socially acceptable manner. This efficiency gives one more liberty in finding love. One does not have to change their criteria for true love. They can continue to go on dates and test the water. The only difference lies in the fact that they can better compare different candidates. This ability allows them to become more autonomous in finding love without geographical or time constraints.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this practice. Evaluating potential love interests represent a time-tested practice in many cultures. Dating apps merely perfected the means of doing so.

Therefore, dating apps have made love more similar to a market. However, that tendency has always existed and this technology simply allowed for an overdue improvement.

The 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate has drawn significant attention to the several centrist Democratic Senators, including Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). Many left-leaning people have criticized them for opposing abolishing the filibuster and raising the minimum wage.

While these criticisms have a factual basis, they ignore the electoral reality in America today. Some of these politicians represent the only winnable candidates in more moderate locations. Joe Manchin remains the only state-level Democrat politician in the deep-red state of West Virginia. Kyrsten Sinema became the first elected Democratic Senator in Arizona for 20 years. However, they are the pattern rather than the anomalies. In 2020, the strongest U.S. House candidates mostly took moderate stances. These political opinions allowed them to win in areas adverse to their parties.

Therefore, criticisms of these politicians seem unsustainable. Their moderate stances represent the proper working of representative democracy as they adhere to the opinions of their constituents. Moreover, these politicians hold the key to power for either of the two major parties in the two chambers. From an electoral standpoint, their input should hold outsized weight in political calculations.

For this reason, battleground state politicians in the U.S. are undervalued.

Populism represents an easy vehicle of public sentiment. It seeks to directly translate a will of the mass into political results. On the surface, this concept seems very democratic. That characterization is not entirely false. Populism does not necessarily threaten democracy, just the form of democracy we know. However, when one speaks of democracy, they are typically referring to the current practice of it. Therefore, populism does represent a critical threat to democracy when one ignores the superficial wording issues.

Our current practice of democracy embraces pluralism. A pluralistic democracy promotes the coexistence of different people, interests, and perspectives. In practice, an elected government often has different voices, elected by different voters. After the election, it becomes the jobs of the political institutions to balance these interests and reach the best compromises. Political pluralism serves as a cornerstone of the inclusive democracy of today by allowing and encouraging different voices.

Populism does not embrace this diversity. While the ideology seeks to express the will of the people, it embraces an exclusive definition of “people.” Populists want to maximize the interests of their supporters. They also want to do so at the expense of other members of society. For populists, only their constituents qualify as the legitimate “we the people.” Its political practice seeks no compromises or balance but only brutal enforcement. One can see this ideology played out in reality in different ways. Right-wing populists often identify themselves through race and ethnicity. Examples of these include Donald Trump’s Republican Party in America and Marine Le Pan’s RN party in France. Left-wing populists do so through economic classes, such as the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

What would a populist democracy look like? Not an attractive one. One can look to Viktor Orban’s Hungarian “illiberal democracy” or Xi Jinping’s Communist Chinese Regime. In both cases, populists capture the desire for economic development among the main ethnic groups in the countries and seek to realize it at the expense of others. Therefore, populist democracy strays far from our common definition of democracy and remains one only in an abstract sense.

For this reason, populism poses a critical threat to democracy.

TL;DR: Equating human rights with animal rights ignores many philosophical nuances around power structures and responsibilities.

Humans and animals both deserve rights. In most cases, one can effectively advocate for both. In other words, human rights and animal rights do not constitute a zero-sum game. Some studies have even discovered a positive correlation between the supporters of the two. However, these similarities do not equate to them. Humans and animals can have separate rights that appeal to the same group of people, but those conditions do not make them the same. For example, American Gen Z represents the most pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-environmentalist generation. LGBTQ+ rights and environmentalism do not represent the same thing. They happen to pose no conflict with each other and appeal to similar people. The same logic can apply to human rights and animal rights.

Therefore, when I argue that human rights are not animal rights, I do not intend to deny separate rights to either. Nor do I think the two conflict with each other. I am merely saying that they are categorically different.

Being subject to oppression does not serve as a sufficient condition to equate human rights with animal rights. Many proponents of the concept point to the shared traits in the threats against humans and animals. Both cases tend to include oppression and cruelty from ruthless oppressors, and both require pushing back to protect those vulnerable. While true, this shared basis cannot suffice as evidence to equate the two. This philosophical basis can apply to any rights movements conceivable. Hence, using it to equate human rights to animal rights would blur the lines between different movements. Why would we distinguish between racial justice and feminism if both involve oppression against minorities? Yet these two movements differ since the structures of powers in the two cases are different. They reflect different problems and require different solutions. On many occasions in history, they even disagreed with each other. If it seems absurd to equate feminism with racial justice, one can say the same about animal rights and human rights.

Animals cannot become a subject of responsibilities as humans do. In a civil society, rights and responsibilities complement one another. To have property rights, one cannot steal from another. To have the right to free speech, one cannot silence another. Protections of lawful members of society necessitate some forms of punishment against unlawful ones. While this concept applies well to most humans, one cannot say the same about animals. Animals are not rational agents. They do not serve as subjects of the law. One cannot hold a lion legally accountable for attacking humans. Therefore, while human rights rely on the balance between rights and responsibilities, animals cannot rely on that basis. Such is not to say animals should not have rights. Instead, their rights should base themselves on different philosophical grounds. These bases would necessitate a meaningful distinction between human rights and animal rights.

For these reasons, human rights are not animal rights.

Tl;DR: Greed and crimes do not require capitalism.

Many like to believe capitalism incentivizes greed and thus crimes. The theory may look tempting on the surface, backed by some of the more exploitative elements of capitalism. However, let’s apply some basic research methods to this theory. To establish casualty, an independent variable (capitalism) must have significant influence over a dependent variable (crimes). Hence, if capitalism does encourage crimes, one must expect to see fewer crimes in a different system. That hypothesis seems counterintuitive and ahistorical. From 1300 to today, homicide rates have only decreased in Europe as capitalism takes over the continent. For horizontal comparison, some of the more crime-haunted countries (Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, etc) have less established capitalist systems than those with fewer crimes (Qatar, Taiwan, etc). Of course, this evidence has significant flaws as it does not control for other variables that may affect crimes. However, there is little evidence to directly verify the connection between capitalism and crimes. If a connection does exist, it has become buried by other more impactful variables.

However, allow me to entertain an alternative hypothesis. What if human greeds require no systemic stimulus? What if capitalism simply gives people a new way to express their insatiable desires? As far as I can see, human greed and subsequent crimes require only two conditions. First, only finite resources are available. Second, finite resources have not become equally distributed to all people. These two reasons seem enough to compel many to crimes, and neither requires capitalism. In fact, from a historical perspective, one may argue capitalism has solved at least one of the two problems. The efficient production under capitalism has produced sufficient quantities of some resources for everyone (such as food).

From this perspective, one may argue that capitalism has represented a step into progress in checking human greed and aggression. We already have enough of some resources for everyone, even though we do not have an equal means of distributing them. As awful as that statement seems, it fairs better than most other stages in human history.

I would be the first to admit that this opinion has more speculation than evidence. However, one can say the same about those preaching criminogenic capitalism. It seems to be much more likely that the so-called capitalist greed represents merely general greed. Humans’ insatiable desires transcend any models of production. Hence, it seems unfair and biased to blame crimes on capitalism.

I can see that argument, but I do not have evidence for that. The reduction in crimes can be due to many other factors besides economic systems.

However, I think I can say a bit more definitively that capitalism is not an important variable in determining crime rates. Therefore, calling it criminogenic is not accurate.

TL;DR: Congressional earmarks represent an effective way to ensure legislative control over spending and address local needs.

In February 2021, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives lifted a decades-long ban on Congressional earmarks. Earmarks allow legislators to direct federal resources to their districts in specific forms. Due to various scandals, it has become a synonym for corruption by politicians. However, despite the risks, earmarks serve as an effective appropriations tool.

Earmarks allow politicians to address local needs. The mechanism directs a certain amount of resources to a specific purpose, allowing politicians to guarantee benefits to their constituents. Since these elected officials have significant connections with their constituents, earmarks can help them address their local needs directly. Without earmarks, many local interests lose their visibility entirely in the all-encompassing federal appropriations process.

While some critics have associated earmarks with abuses of federal funds, the risk persists without them. In the absence of earmarks, the President and other federal agencies would determine how to spend the appropriations. This alternative does little to check the potential abuses of federal resources from the executive branch. In comparison, legislators more attuned to the needs of their districts should have more say over the use of fundings.

With the comeback of earmarks, some levels of abuse will surface. However, overall Congressional earmarks are beneficial.

There are a few things here that I want to push back on.

To start with, the percentage of government spending used for earmarks is very small. Typically, they take up for {less than 1%](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/30/8864869/earmarks-pork-congress)of an entire appropriations bill.

Second of all, I support eliminating special interests in politics. However, associating corruptions with earmarks simply do not stand up to facts. While the most famous examples of earmarks come from scandals, the vast majority of them go to answer the needs of constituents. Equating earmarks with bribery simply misrepresents a case with very biased samples.

Lastly, I do not see what is fundamentally wrong about politicians "bringing back the pork". Congressional representatives are elected to fight for the needs of their constituent. Of course, their incentive is to win re-elections. However, why does that matter if such an incentive compels to address their local needs? Congressional appropriations have to eventually go to specific projects. Would it not make more sense to have someone atoned to local needs make these decisions than to leave them to the entire federal bureaucracy?

Earmarks apply for more than just competitive districts and endangered politicians. Acts of pork barreling generally does not receive significant internal resistance in Congress. Thus, they become accessible to almost all policymakers and Congressional districts.

Take SAFETEA-LU Act (the 2005 transportation bill) as an example. The law passed both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support. Alaska stood as one of the biggest winners of the bill. The credit largely went to Rep. Don Young (R) of Alaska, then Chair of the House Transportation Committee. In fact, the "LU" part of the bill name comes from the name of Rep. Young's wife, Lu Young. Rep. Young is far from vulnerable. Alaska is a safe red state. Rep. Young is right now the longest serving member of the House of Representatives. Similar dynamics played out in the Senate. The bill benefited Oklahoma due to the influence of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is at no risk of electoral defeat. On the other hand, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and his state suffered a defeat in the negotiation of the bill, even though he came from a more vulnerable electoral position (Sen. Gregg was one the four Senators who voted against the bill).

Does Congress pay particular attention to swing state lawmakers when they design bills? Of course. However, the action of earmarks represents no conflict of interests, and invites an open season of pork barreling from almost all lawmakers. Hence, characterizing the practice as exclusive to vulnerable lawmakers is not entirely accurate.

TL;DR: Mandatory psychological evaluations of prospective parents represent a chilling infringement of bodily autonomy, can become biased against certain groups, and have net negative consequences.

Mandatory psychological evaluations seem to have their roots in eugenics. The only conceivable argument for this comes from child and parental welfare. Arguably, parents with better mental health conditions can raise their kids with more ease. These kids, in turn, would have a better family environment. However, I fail to see how to distinguishes this concept from traditional eugenics. If mental health conditions should serve as a barrier to reproduction, why shouldn't physical health? Why should we not ban people with genetic diseases from reproducing? Their kids may very well suffer from these conditions after being born. The obvious answer is that these practices are entirely inhumane and ableist. That rebuttal can easily extend to mental health conditions. Overall, no one can infringe on other people’s bodily autonomy based on such an ableist notion.

Second, the field of psychology has historically shown some concerning biases. Racism and classism have long existed in this academic discipline. While I failed to find existing literature on the equity element in the current psychological evaluation processes for adoptive parents, the prevalent racism in the adoption industry does not reassure me. Hence, I cannot help but wonder whether these psychological evaluations would disproportionately impact poor people and people of color. While I do not have direct evidence of these biases, the potential implications of that possibility demand at least a pulse.

Finally, even if we do not engage in reasonable speculations and slippery slope exercises, the idea seems to come with more costs than benefits. Depriving people of the right to reproduce seems to overwhelm any benefits of this issue. In practice, this idea will encounter various thorny issues. What would we do with accidental pregnancy? Are we even entertaining the dangerous idea of forced abortions in that case? What would the population impacts be? How much government surveillance is necessary to enforce such a mandate? Overall, it seems much more practical to offer alternative and less extreme means of promoting child and parental welfare.

For these reasons, this mandate should not become a reality.

TL;DR: Taxation represents a natural and necessary part of a functioning economy.

The topic of taxation often invites debate among economists. Everyone seems to have a different idea for the perfect tax plan. However, seldom do people challenge the necessity of taxation itself.

Taxation is a necessary economic tool to fix externalities. Anyone who sees tax as a disruptor of the free market lacks a basic understanding of economics. Taxation comes as a response to the inevitability of externalities. Externalities mean interests indirectly impacted in a market transaction. In most market activities, firms and consumers represent only the direct people of interest. These activities often end up unintentionally benefiting or hurting third parties. If these impacts are not taken care of, then all market activities become inefficient. Taxation represents the best way to do so.

Let’s look at an example of a negative externality. A paint factory can sell its products to consumers. The market price of the pains should fully account for the cost of the productions. However, let’s say the factory is next to a river and puts its chemical waste into the river. Many people may need the water in the river for different reasons, and now they can no longer do so. In this case, these people all have suffered a cost from the paint productions. However, their costs would not factor in the prices of the paints, and nor will they receive any compensation. To make the market transactions of paints perfect, the factory must pay for their costs to the river. However, that compensation becomes very difficult to execute as a private business. The factory cannot track down every person affected and figure out the proper amounts of compensation.

In this simplified scenario, taxation becomes the most effective tool to deal with externality. The government can tax the company and use the money to compensate those affected in some ways. In reality, these fixes become very complicated, and many can disagree on how to calculate the externalities (and thus the proper tax rate). However, there is little debate that an efficient free-market economy cannot exist with taxation.

For this reason, taxation is a necessary economic tool.

TL;DR: A good policy must obey the fundamental principles of a civil society and produce net gains. Male curfew does neither.

The questionable practicality of male curfew represents the least of its issues. No one should entertain the idea to broaden the debate or offer a perspective. Male curfew has, at just first sight, two major problems.

Male curfew represents an inexcusable infringement of civil rights. “The worst thing about a legal curfew for men is that, if you break it, you would be arrested. The worst thing that happens to women when they break their informal curfew is: they die,” said Caitlin Moran. Ms. Moran’s false comparison is shocking in scale. Let’s examine the roles and faults of the government in these two scenarios. In the latter one, the government failed to protect women from danger at night. It did not promote gender equality or public safety in a sufficient way. It served as a bystander ignorant of its responsibilities. In this case, the government failed as a protector due to its inaction. In the former case of a male curfew, the government actively infringed on the civil liberties of its citizens. It abused its power to a significant degree and departed from the principle of civil government. In this case, the government served as a perpetrator due to its abuse of power. Hence, Ms. Moran’s comparison ignores the different roles of the government in her two scenarios. In doing so, she conceals the damaging infringement of power in male curfew. The solution to a mistake by the government (its inaction to gender violence) should not be an even more outlandish mistake, particularly not one that jeopardizes civil liberty.

This argument may seem outdated with the background of all the Covid-19 restrictions. However, unlike those restrictions, male curfew would produce net negative effects as a policy. It seems difficult to envision the entertainment of the idea would bring new perspectives to men. For the sake of the argument, let’s say such benefits do exist. However, such benefits pale in comparison to the harm outlined above, especially considering all the better alternatives. A government can increase the penalty of gender-based violence. A government can have an awareness campaign on the issue. A government can invest more in public safety. Of course, one can argue none of these would produce the effect of the size of a male curfew. However, they also have far fewer detrimental side effects. When comparing the marginal gains and the marginal costs, any alternative seems more efficient than a male curfew.

For these reasons, one should not embrace or even entertain the idea of a male curfew.

TL;DR: The concept of “free money” represents an expensive and poorly targeted social welfare program.

Having the government give free money to its citizens sounds like an attractive idea. There is only one problem. It is not really free. These programs, such as UBI, can incur a significant financial burden on the government. If the U.S. federal government gives every citizen $1000 every month, it would have to double its current tax revenues. Reasonable tax hikes are necessary for fair redistributions of social wealth. A 100% hike, however, does not fail in the definition of "reasonable".

Without significant additional revenues, how would the government pay for “free money”? The government would have to cut existing welfare programs. These cuts represent an essential harm of the “free money” idea. Proponents of the idea often cite a few economic experiments in which extra money significantly improved people’s lives. However, in these experiments, the free money comes as a supplement, not the replacement of existing welfare programs. For all their faults, programs such as SNAP and TANF target the most urgent needs of those most vulnerable in our society. “Free money” does not have such a clear target. By replacing welfare programs with free money for all, the government would essentially take money from the most vulnerable and distribute them to every member of society. This action represents a deeply regressive and harmful redistribution.

Welfare programs have specific targets. Sometimes, those targets seem too restrictive or misplaced. Such criticisms have many merits. In the United States, many of these programs do not benefit as many as they should. The attraction of free money lies in its rejection of targets. Instead, it seeks to become as expansive as possible to not miss anyone. This rejection represents an overreaction. By eliminating targets, free money becomes inefficient and wasteful as a welfare program. In the debate of safety nets, a good policy must balance precise targeting and proper coverage. Going to one extreme, as free money advocates have, invites only negative consequences.

For this reason, the government should not give people free money.

TL;DR: Suspension of AstraZeneca, however temporary, has insufficient scientific justification and encourages vaccine hesitancy.

Several European countries have suspended the administration of the AstraZeneca vaccines due to fear of blood clots.

While substantiated reports of blood clots have surfaced among people administered with this vaccine, such circumstantial evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence. Blood clots occur randomly for people, with or without vaccinations. Hence, absent the evidence of a statistically significant increase of such cases, one cannot conclude any meaningful correlation or causation between the two factors. Many medical authorities and officials have echoed such a sentiment. Emer Cooke, the executive director of the European Medicines Associations, continued to advocate for the vaccines. The WHO considered it riskier to suspend the vaccines than to continue the administration. In the UK, many medical professionals seem perplexed by the decisions of many European countries. The country has seen the most widespread use of the AstraZeneca vaccines.

Such a move, temporary or not, will lead to substantial consequences. Europe has one of the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy among its population. This temporary suspension risks inviting more resistance to AstraZeneca or Covid-19 vaccines in general among many people. Vaccine hesitancy does not represent the last of Europe’s trouble. The continent and the EU block have suffered from a slow rollout of vaccines and are currently going through a third wave of infections. Therefore, the suspension of AstraZeneca with little evidence at this pivotal moment seems reckless and shocking.

More likely than not, the AstraZeneca vaccine does not have significant side effects and will play a significant role in ending the Covid-19 Pandemic. However, that forecast has no significance in judging the current decisions of suspension. Scientific and medical decisions must depend on concrete and existing evidence, not empty and casual speculations of the future. When evaluating the current information available, the decision to temporarily suspend the AstraZeneca vaccines seems harmful and confusing.

TL;DR: A global minimum tax on multinational corporations can reduce tax evasion and offshoring threats.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently proposed a global minimum tax on multinational corporations. The proposal would set a floor on corporate taxes. If a country has a lower tax rate than the tax floor, other countries can legally target companies from these countries with higher taxes to compensate for their loss. The proposal, supported by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, can discourage corporate offshoring and international tax evasion.

Currently, a company only pays taxes to the country of its headquarter. As a result, many multinational companies have relocated their headquarters to tax havens while maintaining significant economic activities in all countries. This measure deprives governments of revenues for public expenses and concentrates wealth on these corporations. As of now, multinational companies are leverage tax havens to save $240 billion of tax expenses every year. A global minimum corporate tax would reduce this practice. By facilitating proper taxation on these companies, this tax can strengthen government revenues and promote reasonable wealth redistribution around the world.

This practice can also limit the current “race to the bottom” status of corporate taxes. Countries have become caught in a battle of lowering corporate taxes to attract and maintain business presences. This race to the bottom gives companies the leverages and pits countries against one another. The threat of offshoring has discouraged many countries from more progressive tax codes. In the long run, the competition of low taxes leaves the multinational corporations richer and everyone else poorer. A global minimum tax would provide a floor to this competition. The tax would guarantee some levels of taxation and fair competition between countries for business investments.

For these reasons, there should be a global minimum tax on multinational corporations.

TL;DR: Independent redistricting commissions can solve gerrymandering and make U.S. elections more democratic.

The United States is on the verge of a new electoral district map. This development represents bad news for the Democratic Party, as the GOP controls more state legislatures responsible for producing the new map.

For this reason, the GOP can cause significant gerrymandering to make electrons easier for themselves. Gerrymander means intentionally drawing electoral districts for partisan advantages. This phenomenon not only undermines democracy but also causes other political issues. Due to the unnatural number of safe red or safe blue districts, polarizing and extreme politicians have become more common in the U.S. House of Representatives.

To solve gerrymandering, all states in the U.S. should give redistricting power to independent state-level commissions. These commissions can have equal shares to the two parties to ensure impartiality. Currently, a total of 14 states have adopted this measure. These states have generally seen fewer election-related litigations and more bipartisanship. The electoral results in these states also better match the preferences of voters.

For these reasons, all states in the U.S. should establish independent redistricting commissions.

The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine how to conduct an election in their states. Without authorization to an independent commission, the state legislatures would draw the districts. This practice gives significant power to the majority party in the legislatures. A governor can veto a redistricting plan. However, if a party has a functioning trifecta (two chambers of the state legislatures and the governor's seat), the majority party will have unchecked power to redraw districts to their advantages. This practice happened during the last redistricting process in states such as Wisconsin (by the GOP) and Maryland (by the Dems). It will happen again this time in crucial states such as Georgia, Texas, and Iowa (all by the GOP).

Balise Pascal makes a similar argument in his theory of Wager of God.

French philosopher and mathematician Blaise makes a similar point with his mathematical model. He does not think humans can know for sure God’s existence. However, he continues to encourage people to engage in praying and religious activities.

He bases this argument on the mathematical model of game theory. Two variables exist in this problem. One can either believe in God or not. God can either exist or not.

If God does not exist, one does not gain or lose anything regardless of their faith. They would die with no afterlife. In these two cases, the case-specific utilities represent a net of zero.

If God does exist and one does not believe in God, they would receive eternal damnation. This punishment represents a severity beyond human understanding. Hence, Pascal assigns it a utility of infinitely negative.

If God does exist and one believes in God, they would receive eternal salvation. This grace represents a benefit beyond human understanding. Hence, Pascal assigns it a utility of infinitely positive.

Of course one cannot discern accurately the chance of God’s existence. However, let’s look at the different options. If one chooses to believe in God, they can either receive zero utility or infinitely positive utilities. If one chooses to not believe in God, they can either receive zero utility or infinitely negative utilities. Hence, choosing to believe in God represents the optimum strategy in the question of faith or no faith.

Discussions of vaccine mandates must include more ethical principles than personal freedom and bodily autonomy. The issue of distributive justice requires a more case-by-case consideration of mandating vaccines.

Individual liberty and bodily autonomy matter in public health ethics. However, other principles should also play a role, especially in the case of vaccine mandates.

Vaccines go beyond a question of personal liberty. In a civil society, one should have control over their body, as long as their actions do not harm others. In the case of vaccines, they likely will. Individual choice of forgoing vaccines increases risks for several categories of people. In particular, this choice impacts people vulnerable to the targeted disease and ones not eligible for vaccines due to medical allergies. The impacts could happen on a micro or a macro level. The person forgoing vaccines may directly transmit the disease to these people. Alternatively, they could make herd immunity more difficult to achieve and cause an indirect negative impact on these people.

Hence, reducing vaccines to a matter of personal liberty represents an inadequate, shallow, and biased approach to a complicated issue. Instead, one must consider the principle of distributive justice: who bears the burden of vaccination and who benefits from herd immunity? This principle of distributive justice inevitably leads to more nuanced discussions of vaccine mandates. How deadly and transmissible is the targeted disease? How many vulnerable people are there in society? Moreover, the definition of “mandatory” serves as another subject of discussion. What does “mandatory” mean? Would a ban of unvaccinated people from certain public services (buses, schools, etc) count as mandating vaccines?

Therefore, depending on the specific disease, the distributive justice principle can lead to different conclusions. Regular flu does not pose an overwhelming impact on public health. Therefore, the cost of mandating the flu vaccine may outweigh the benefit. For more severe diseases like measles, some more forceful action may become legitimate (banning unvaccinated children from public schools).

Regardless of the detail, discussions of vaccines must include the consideration of distributive justice. A pure discussion of personal freedom and autonomy on this topic makes a mockery of public health ethics.

Qualified immunity represents a legally hollow tool to protect the police from consequences of their wrongful actions.

Qualified immunity serves as a legal shield that prevents government officials from civil liabilities for violating people’s rights. While harmful in general, the concept becomes particularly significant in cases involving police brutalities. Many police officers have escaped civil lawsuits due to the broad application of qualified immunity. In February 2021, [The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals] (https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-10055.0.pdf) granted qualified immunity to an officer who knowingly lit a civilian on fire.

Qualified immunity has a shaky legal background. When affirming the concept, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to balance civil rights with the protection of civil servants. In their view, qualified immunity would prevent frivolous lawsuits from individuals towards the government. In practice, the balance has failed significantly due to the lack of many unpunished incidents of police brutality.

Since its creations, qualified immunity has continued to expand in reach. In 1982, Harlow v. Fitzgerald allowed the concept to come into force regardless of the intentions of the officers in the incident. Various courts have since defaulted to these precedents without considering the specific circumstances in granting qualified immunity to police officers.

Without qualified immunity, police officers and governments may have more incentives to change their actions. They would have less leeway in civil cases. The chance of heavy fines in these cases can serve as a financial incentive for the government to become more mindful in policing. While removing this legal shield would not solve police brutality entirely, it would certainly represent a positive step forward.

For these reasons, the United States should abolish qualified immunity.

TL;DR: Banning alcohol for public health reasons is overly paternalistic.

Alcohol can lead to physical and mental health issues when over-consumed. However, calling something harmful and banning something constitute two entirely different actions on philosophical grounds. More specifically, banning alcohol for public health reasons will qualify as a drastic and excessive level of paternalism.

Paternalism means limiting one’s freedom for their own best interest. While the current pandemic may make the idea look appealing, public health ethics rarely embraces strong paternalism.

A person living in a civil democracy has the freedom to make their own choices, including bad ones. Such a principle applies especially to something like alcohol. Alcohol does not necessarily cause harm. It could if used improperly. That characterization covers many topics, from spicy food to sleep deprivation. Hence, the underlying public health argument for banning alcohol can justify many more severe and absurd actions.

These actions of paternalism can constitute grave damage to civil liberty and personal freedom. Such damage will surely outweigh the benefits of eliminating alcohol. In public health, the principle of “do not harm” has an established priority in decision-making. Hence, it seems unlikely the ethical system of public health would endorse banning alcohol in many fashions.

One cannot preach prohibition for health reasons without running counter to health ethics. Hence, people should be allowed to make their own bad choices, including drinking.

TL;DR: The new reform to the child tax credit system will increase aid to particularly vulnerable communities and reduce child poverty.

On March 11, 2021, President Joe Biden signed his stimulus package into law with a reformed child tax credit.

The child tax credit allows parents to claim a tax refund with their underaged children. Before the reform, one child could lead to up to $1400 in a tax refund. While significant for reducing child poverty, the original system failed to cover the most vulnerable groups. Since some families may not earn enough to qualify for the tax credit, the poorest 10% of children in the U.S. did not benefit at all from the program.

The reform will extend these benefits to the most vulnerable communities. It will also mandate the government to execute the credit through monthly checks to families instead of an annual tax refund. While the results of the reform will take time to become apparent, current estimates portray an optimistic image. As it stands, the reform will cut child poverty almost in half, from 14% to 7.5%. It will particularly benefit children of color and advance racial equity.

As it stands, the reform represents a one-year trial. However, a program with such potential should become permanent in the welfare system due to the reasons above.

I have mixed feelings about the benefits and costs of cancel culture. However, calling it censorship seems misleading. Censorship typically comes from authorities. It is often top-down, from a centralized and powerful figure to many powerless subjects. It is typically associated with institutional consequences. Breaking censorship can often lead to state-level punishment. Cancel culture bears neither of the characteristics. Mostly, canceling comes from social media as a collective action of a group of people. None of the individuals has any particular power. The consequences of being canceled come from market forces rather than state ones. A canceled person often becomes isolated by major corporations for their perceived liabilities. Hence, cancel culture bears no particular association with censorship, the latter often coming from authoritarian regimes.

I consider cancel culture to be closer to social taboos rather than censorship. While the results of both may not differ significantly, one should not mix the two. Censorship implies not only real-life consequences but also symbolizes a fundamental infringement of freedom of speech. A social taboo, such as cancel culture, bears only the first implication.

I think the original argument served as an effective positive statement but an unconvincing normative one. I do not doubt that commercialization and capitalism have overtaken many traditions in holidays. However, I failed to see the adverse effects of that.

Traditions and cultures change, often according to the environment. In our current climate, some consumer practices have simply become more relevant to some older traditions. Holidays celebrate the important and good aspects of life, and I would argue matters such as production or consumption have become an important barometer for life quality. Hence, the growing connections between consumption and holidays do not represent the death of culture, but rather a new form of culture.

Furthermore, the new traditions have opened up holiday joy to more diverse groups of people. Many of the traditional holidays were very culturally specific. While that does not constitute a negative matter (in fact, I believe people should be encouraged to practice them), it may have fallen out of step with the growing diversity in different regions.

Hence, the commercialization of holidays represents merely a natural product of capitalism and globalization. I see no moral good or bad about such an evolution. Of course, one may be inclined to label capitalism as inherently bad. In this case, I would argue that old traditions become replaced by new ones all the time. If not capitalism, a different cultural trend would have.

While I agree with the proposition, I find the arguments unconvincing and problematic.

In my opinion, social media has damaged many democratic institutions. Authoritarian actors have often used these platforms to spread misinformation and reduce people’s faith in democracy. The lack of trust in institutions has fueled fringe movements such as QAnon and anti-vax. However, I feel somewhat perplexed and disturbed by some of the arguments for this notion.

First, some arguments seem focused on news algorithms. I see these algorithms as harmful and polarizing. They damage democracy since polarization makes democratic deliberation more difficult. However, I do not think I would characterize the harm as “people losing interests in a democracy.” The original author did not specify how having customized news leads to a loss of interest. If one examines voter participation, the current level of voter engagement seems similar to the 1980s. [1] Hence, a far strong argument should revolve around the damage of social media on institutional trust, rather than interest.

Second, I disagree about the link between political knowledge and democracy. To start with, social media did not take away people’s access to balanced information. It merely distracts people from it. However, such influences on people’s political opinions existed before social media. Churchs, communities, and industrial leaders often convince people to vote in particular ways. Asking everyone to stay independent and deliberative about their political views is untenable and unreasonable. The standard would reduce the concept of “effective democracy” to mere fantasies.

Lastly, political knowledge should not become a prerequisite for democratic participation. Requiring people to “educate themselves” about politics seems to be an absurdly elitist idea. The concept of democracy needs the participation of common people, not educated people or politically interested people. Tying this notion to effective democracy can lead to dangerous implications about the voting rights of underprivileged people.

None of this justifies social media platforms. They have knowingly poisoned political discourses in many democratic countries. Regulations need to emerge to curb such toxic influences. That said, the original argument seemed to have gone a step further. It tasks average voters to gain a significant understanding of politics. While that would serve as good advice, it is terrible as a requirement for effective democracy. In the context of this argument, that seems like an unnecessary burden with dangerous implications.

[1]. "Voter Turnout In Presidential Elections | The American Presidency Project". 2021. Presidency.Ucsb.Edu. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections.

Apprenticeship programs serve as an effective and affordable means of obtaining employment for young people.

Apprenticeship programs allow students to learn skills while already on the job. Considering the rising cost of higher education and the decrease of employment opportunities, apprenticeship programs can become an effective solution to unemployment and lack of economic security.

Apprenticeship programs can become an attractive alternative to a college education. In 10 different states, these programs have increased participants’ annual earnings by $5,879 in the ninth year after enrolling and a lifetime earnings increase of $98,718. [1] The option becomes more appealing considering the cost of the alternative: higher education. Currently, attending universities incurs significant opportunity costs for young people. The subsequent debt can have a long-term impact on the economic security of these people. [2] In particular, low-income students have consistently struggled with graduating from university and obtaining suitable employment after graduation. Hence, the “learn at work” model could allow these students a chance to increase human capital without losing short-term incomes.

As of now, the United States has not invested significantly in apprenticeship programs. Without government fundings, employers are unlikely to spend their resources on apprenticeship programs. As a result, the U.S. has at most 10% per capita number of apprentices of many European countries. [3]

Apprenticeship programs lack history and track records in the United States. However, the idea has proven beneficial in many countries and currently receives bipartisan support. Hence, the U.S. should expand apprenticeship programs.

[1]. Kuehn, Daniel. 2021. "Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs Deserve A Chance To Thrive". Blog. Urban Wire. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/industry-recognized-apprenticeship-programs-deserve-chance-thrive.

[2]. Lerman, Robert. 2014. "Proposal 7: Expanding Apprenticeship Opportunities In The United States". The Hamilton Project. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/expand_apprenticeships_united_states_lerman.pdf.

[3]. Herzenberg, Stephen. 2017. "Apprenticeship Weak". Blog. Working Economics Blog. https://www.epi.org/blog/trump-apprenticeship-proposal/.

TL;DR: state infrastructure banks can generate sustainable and regional economic growth.

Currently, 32 states have state-level infrastructure banks. These entities serve as financial institutions to fund state-level infrastructure projects independent of federal programs. [1]

State Infrastructure banks can produce sustainable and beneficial projects. While these banks may initially receive federal funding, they should, at least in theory, become self-sufficient in the long run. These banks can use payback to current loan projects to fund future ones. Hence, they create a sustainable market-based solution to infrastructure needs. Many of these projects have led to significant economic benefits. In California, the state infrastructure bank lent San Gabriel $3.8 million for street repairs, enabling the city to generate future economic growth. [1]

Establishing these banks at state levels also creates additional benefits. Unlike federal programs, state infrastructure banks have proven better at identifying regional and local needs. These banks cooperate with the federal government only when they see benefits in doing so. Hence, they can ensure the best and most effective use of infrastructure investments in different circumstances. [2].

For these reasons, states in the U.S. should establish and utilize their infrastructure banks.

[1]. DuPuis, Nicole, and Christiana McFarland. 2016. "Paying For Local Infrastructure In A New Era Of Federalism: A State-Level Analysis". National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NLC_2016_Infrastructure_Report.pdf.

[2]. Puentes, Robert, and Jennifer Thompson. 2012. "Banking On Infrastructure: Enhancing State Revolving Funds For Transportation". Project On State And Metropolitan Innovation. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/12-state-infrastructure-investment-puentes.pdf.

TL;DR: Allowing local hires in federal infrastructure programs can boost regional development and promote equality.

On March 2, 2021, more than 150 local officials and organizations called on Joe Biden to list local hire bans for federal infrastructure programs. [1] The ban leaves the right to choose workers to the contractors, rather than cities themselves.

Many have seen local hires as the key to vitalizing regional economies. Infrastructure has traditionally served as an effective economic and labor stimulus. During the Obama era, cities used infrastructure to generate economic activities and employment opportunities with notable success. [2] However, the ban on local hires can reduce the development impacts of these projects. Right now, cities have to use taxpayer money to fund expensive projects with the spill-over effects of local employment.

Local hires can also have a positive effect on economic equality. Cities can use the chance to target low-income workers or minority groups. These employment opportunities can give them new experiences, skills, and connections to achieve sustainable income long after the conclusion of the infrastructure projects. [3] By creating these benefits, local hires can fix the historical injustice of federal infrastructure programs. Too often, vulnerable communities suffered, instead of benefited, from mass constructions. Between the 1950s and 1960s, Construction of Interstate-94 highway Minnesota cut the thriving African American Rondo neighborhood in half, delivering significant cultural and economic damages to the community. [4] Targeted and managed local hires can ensure infrastructure benefits to minority communities and amend for a legacy of racial harm.

For these reasons, federal infrastructure programs in the United States should allow local hires.

[1]. Castronuovo, Celine. 2021. "Mayors Join Calls For Biden Administration To End Ban On Local Hires In Federal Infrastructure Projects". The Hill, , 2021. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/541189-mayors-join-coalition-urging-biden-administration-to-end-ban-on-local?rl=1.

[2]. Cohen, Patricia. 2017. "Linking Public Works To Local Hiring Faces A Trump Challenge". The New York Times, , 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/business/economy/local-hiring-laws-public-projects.html.

[3]. Cantrell, Jennifer, and Suparna Jain. 2013. "Enforceability Of Local Hire Preference Programs". Legal Problems Arising Out Of Highway Programs. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/gap/fedreg/Documents/Legal%20Research%20Digest%20No.59%20-%20Enforceability%20of%20Localk%20Hire%20Preferences%20Programs.pdf.

[4]. Alam, Ehsan. 2017. "Before It Was Cut In Half By I-94, St. Paul’S Rondo Was A Thriving African-American Cultural Center". Minnpost, , 2017. https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2017/06/it-was-cut-half-i-94-st-paul-s-rondo-was-thriving-african-american-cultural-center/.

With or without social media, American voters pay significant attention to the personalities of politicians. Sometimes, this emphasis can even outweigh voters’ preferences for policies when they cast their votes. However, this preference unfairly disadvantages underrepresented groups in political races.

When voters look for ephemeral qualities, such as likability, in politicians, they tend to shy away from underrepresented groups. Female politicians often have to bear the label of angry, cold or unlikable. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) received significant media discussion of her likability during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. The same discussion did not manifest for the male candidates. Candidates of color often fall prey to the perception of unelectability, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

American voters look for idols in their leaders. Such a tendency gives favors for traditional politicians, often white cisgender male. AOC may be winning applause during her streaming. However, outside the liberal corners of the internet, the celebrity fascination with politicians have sunk many underrepresented politicians like her.

For this reason, the celebrity status of U.S. politicians does not constitute a healthy political environment.

Tl;DR: Political experience should not serve as a barrier for presidential campaigns.

Candidates with no political experience should not become presidents. However, sometimes they have reasons to run other than the White House ambition.

There are generally two categories of candidates. The first category is serious contenders. They run for presidents because they see a chance of winning. Most candidates in this category have some political experiences since most people do not plot a serious White House run without holding office. In the 2020 Democratic Primary, this category includes Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and most of the candidates. The second category is issue advocates. They choose to run because they want to use the spotlight to push for specific issues. They do not necessarily aim to enter the White House. Instead, they want to bring new ideas into the mainstream political conversation. Most candidates with no experience fall into this category. In the case of 2020 Democrats, both of the major political newcomers, Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson, are issue advocates (I excluded Tom Steyer due to his extensive ties to the Democratic Party as a donor).

In the case of issue advocates, I can see a benefit of them running. They often do not succeed. However, when they do, they have the potential to bring new ideas into the political discussion. Therefore, in this specific case, I can see the benefits of a candidate with no political experience.

TL;DR: equity may benefit individuals at the cost of collective benefits.

Since the original article did not define the two terms, I will base my opinion on my understanding. Equality means giving everyone equal resources. Equity means individualizing resources for the most optimal outcomes of every person. By these definitions, equity seems like a perfect idea. However, in practice, equity invites some serious problems.

Equity can disincentivize competitions. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes. It will allow more help to those falling behind. The concept maximizes the benefits of each individual. However, it may not do so for society as a whole. A reasonable level of inequality incentivizes people to compete in an economy (I define reasonable as surmountable with individual efforts). The competition, while stressful, has led to many innovations with societal values. New medicines, technologies, and ideas stem from the competition and material incentives. An unfortunate truth is that the best interest of society as a whole does not mean the best interest of each individual member of the society. Many beneficial acts to society themselves do not generate individual benefits. Therefore, rewards and incentives are necessary to drive people to these socially beneficial acts. Most of the time, the rewards and incentives mean more material possessions. Equity may temper that process.

That said, our society has a long way to go before this question becomes significant. We live with unsustainable, rather than reasonable inequality. Instead of stimulating competition, the resource gap has grown so wide as to discourage people from attempting better lives. Therefore, in the short run, our society needs aggregate action to redistribute resources. Whether that is done under the name of equality or equity seems insignificant. However, in a theoretical sense, I think equality may get our society further than equity.

TL;DR: Modern NGOs have their limitations. However, labeling them neo-colonial ignores many layers of nuances.

Ideological purism in NGO funding does not render productive results. While NGOs should receive scrutiny for their fundraising like all other organizations, one should not criticize them for raising “western money.” To start with, many international NGOs work with underprivileged groups. These groups do not have the resources to support the work of the NGOs. Even if they do, donations to NGOs may just be a culturally alien concept to many people across the world. Therefore, a lack of local funding does not signal the lack of popularity of NGOs in those regions, nor does it discredit the importance of NGOs’ work.

Furthermore, such criticism ignores the actual mechanism of NGO operations. Many NGOs enjoy a significant degree of autonomy from their funding sources. Many of them strive to connect with their target beneficiaries. Therefore, equating an NGO’s agenda to that of its funding source ignores some of the basic realities of NGO functions.

The proponent of the idea sets up so-called “western cultural understanding and values” as a straw man. What does the word western mean here? There are countless NGOs with different and often competing agendas, funded by very different sources. Reducing that ideological diversity to a simple stamp of “western cultural understanding and values” appears puzzling. Moreover, the level of moral relativism in this argument seems shocking in its depth. Cultural toleration of cruelty does not excuse cruelty. Human genital mutilation remains a grotesque deed despite its cultural root. In other words, one should assume that the concept of human rights has the property to exceed cultural differences. Calling a good concept western does not discredit it.

Lastly, the harm of this idea looms larger than its benefits. The argument itself is not entirely wrong. Many of these NGOs may, despite their best intentions, be reinforcing the current global power structure. However, the idea has often become weaponized as an excuse for authoritarian countries to discredit human rights advocacy. China has done so. Russia has done so.

For these reasons, a purity test on NGOs ignores important nuances and lends credibility to autocracies.

TL;DR: Employment stock ownership plans (ESOPs) represent a win-win economic policy for both workers and companies. The government should promote this policy.

Even in Joe Biden’s 100 days in office, he appears unable to sell a $15 minimum wage to Congress. [1] Since the option has failed to qualify for budget reconciliation, the federal government should look elsewhere to promote worker compensation. ESOPs may serve as an attractive alternative. The policy allows employees to become company shareholders. They can then potentially earn an extra benefit from these stocks.

Currently, workers in the U.S. take a historically low share of the national economic growth. Disparities between a company’s earnings and its workers’ wages have grown significantly. Therefore, allowing long-term workers to become shareholders can ensure a correlation between the variables. In conclusion, ESOPs can increase workers’ disposable income and promote a more fair distribution of corporate profit. [2]

The unique advantage of ESOPs lies in their corporate and political practicality. Unlike plans such as a $15 minimum wage, ESOPs may enjoy a warmer reception from businesses and conservative politicians. ESOPs have benefited corporations in various ways. For one thing, it promotes employee morale and loyalty. A study has shown that companies with ESOPs fare better in retaining their employees during an economic downturn. [3] The benefit seems to continue in the long term. An empirical study ties ESOPs with better long-term fortunes of businesses. Companies with ESOPs are less likely to file for bankruptcy or face acquisition. [4] In general, ESOPs seem to lead to corporate efficiency and longevity.

The U.S. labor force of 2021 requires immediate political action. Therefore, Congress and the Biden Administration should look at policies with bipartisan support. As a win-win strategy, promoting ESOPs may become a viable and effective option.

For this reason, employee stock ownership plans are a good economic strategy.

[1]. Cochrane, Emily. 2021. "Top Senate Official Disqualifies Minimum Wage From Stimulus Plan". The New York Times, , 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/us/politics/federal-minimum-wage.html.

[2]. Stangler, Dane. 2021. "Enable More Workers To Become Owners Through Employee Stock Ownership". New Ideas For A Do-Something Congress. Progressive Policy Institute. https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publication/esops/.

[3]. Kurtulus, Fidan Ana, and Douglas Kruse. 2017. "An Empirical Analysis Of The Relationship Between Employee Ownership And Employment Stability In The US: 1999-2011". British Journal Of Industrial Relations 56 (2): 245-291. doi:10.1111/bjir.12254.

[4]. Blasi, Joseph, Douglas Kruse, and Dan Weltmann. 2013. "Firm Survival And Performance In Privately Held ESOP Companies". Advances In The Economic Analysis Of Participatory And Labor-Managed Firms 14: 109-124. doi:10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014006.

The second acquittal of former President Donald Trump represents a disturbing moment for U.S. politics. Despite significant evidence, 43 GOP senators shielded the former President from conviction. However, the judicial system does not constitute a viable alternative for the impeachment process. Involving the court system would have significant ramifications for the separation of powers.

A sitting President enjoys extensive immunity from civil suits. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court entitles the President with “absolute immunity… functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history." [1]. In two memos, the U.S. Justice Department reached the same conclusion. The Justice Department believed that civil indictments could interfere with the President’s ability to perform his duty as the executive officer of the United States. This interference would constitute a violation of the separation of powers. [2] A court-oriented impeachment process can damage that immunity.

The judicial system does not have the practical tool for presidential impeachment. While the process adopts legal vocabularies, impeachment differs significantly from the typical court cases. It does not have to follow established procedures. Its standard for conviction differs from that adopted by the court. It asks a fundamentally political question: should the President be removed from office? The judicial system must then follow the political question doctrine asserted in Baker v. Carr. The doctrine bars the judiciary from engaging in issues which it lacks the “discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” and which is assigned to “a coordinate political department”. Regrettably, the doctrine leaves the job only to the Senate. [3]

Furthermore, a court-mandated impeachment can be undemocratic. The presidency represents the most important and only national election in the U.S, with no alternatives. A grand jury impeachment allows a small, non-elected group to cancel the votes of millions. “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President.” wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas. [4] The phrase rejects one of Trump’s legal attempts to undo the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. It should also suffice to reject the notion of a court-oriented impeachment.

These doctrines and procedures may seem trivial compared to the injustice of the second Trump acquittal. They are not. The United States judicial system functions on precedents. Having a court decides impeachment might open the door to further erosion of important principles, chief among them the separation of powers. If allowed to cumulate, the erosion can cause significant chaos for U.S. politics with far reaching consequences beyond the Trump era.

[1]. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

[2]. Moss, Randolph. 2000. "A Sitting President's Amenability To Indictment And Presidential Prosecution". U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download.

[3]. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

[4]. Donald Trump For President, Inc et al v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2020 3d Cir.

I stand by my conclusion that judicial involvement in the impeachment process is unconstitutional and problematic, despite all the flaws of the Senate.

That said, my understanding of U.S. law is shallow at best. I have no doubt that I have misrepresented some of the complicated legal issues in this opinion. However, I believe the general conclusion is accurate.

I am not certain a court has the ability at all to determine an impeachment. There is no standard of review for this kind of process in the court system. Impeachment differs significantly from normal crimes. Technically, the U.S. Senate can impeach the President for acts not deemed crimes. The court's high standard of review can make convictions even harder than the politicized U.S. Senate.

However, suppose we can pass an amendment to change that and allow the court to get involved. I am not sure how this will impact the legal system. Like many other important laws, this kind of change will likely have unexpected implications. Specifically, it can damage the political question doctrine and allows court to get more involved in politics. Considering that federal judges are appointed and not elected, that involvement definitely seems unconstitutional.

Then again I can be wrong (not a law student). Maybe there is a way to amend the process without unintended consequences. However, there are still many realistic problems with the idea. Do we allow this to go through the court system like all other cases? I can think of two district court judges in Texas that would likely find an excuse to impeach Biden right now had such an amendment passed. Should we allow the Supreme Court to do it? That could become extremely dangerous. The Supreme Court tries very hard to avoid blatant partisanship to preserve public trust in the institution. Impeachment involvement will significantly harm that trust and damage the rule of law in the U.S.

TL;DR: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala serves as an qualified and effective incoming Director-General of the WTO due to her competence and background.

On February 15, 2021, The World Trade Organization officially confirmed Nigeria’s former Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as its next Director-General. Her confirmation marked the first female and first African head of the WTO.

Okonjo-Iweala has an impressive resume. As a Finance Minister, she negotiated Nigeria’s debt relief with many skeptical international leaders, including then-President George W. Bush. She became the country’s most well-known corruption buster as her economic reform reduced the influences of many established figures in Nigeria. The entrenched interests saw her as such a threat that they kidnapped her mother as leverage in 2012. Despite all the obstacles, Okonjo-Iweala persisted with her mission to transform the Nigerian economy. [1] While some critics have pointed out some shortcomings of her policies, her legacy and experiences make her well qualified to run the WTO.

Okonjo-Iweala’s confirmation has significance beyond herself. As a groundbreaking candidate, her rise represents a recognition of the African continent. While many African nations have suffered unfair trade exploitation, the continent has started to show its potential and leadership on the international stage. As the first female WTO head, Okonjo-Iweala joins the ranks of other top women in fiances, such as ECB President Christine Lagarde and IMF Chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva. Okonjo-Iweala does not shy away from her identity. In 2020, then U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer objected to her nomination for her perceived lack of experience. To this, she responded: “if you encounter a problem because you are a woman and you’re Black and you’re African, take that problem, that weakness they have, and make it your strength…” [2]

Okonjo-Iweala has a tough job ahead. The WTO has fallen into consistent dysfunction in recent years due to the rise of economic protectionism. [3] Her success is in no way guaranteed. However, no men or women are more qualified to try.

For this reason, the World Trade Organization has a promising Director-General in Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.

[1]. Baschuk, Bryce. 2021. "A Nigerian Corruption Fighter Nicknamed ‘Okonjo The Trouble Maker’ Could Shake Up The WTO". The Seattle Times, , 2021. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/a-nigerian-corruption-fighter-nicknamed-okonjo-the-trouble-maker-could-shake-up-the-wto/.

[2]. Paquette, Danielle, and David Lynch. 2021. "Trump Tried To Block Her. Now Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Is About To Make History.". The Washington Post, , 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/ngozi-okonjo-iweala-wto/2021/02/09/99e3b028-67eb-11eb-bab8-707f8769d785_story.html.

[3]. Ana, Swanson. 2021. "W.T.O. Officially Selects Okonjo-Iweala As Its Director General". The New York Times, , 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/15/business/economy/wto-okonjo-iweala-director-general.html.

Higher education in the United States has become increasingly expensive and put many in debt. Despite this, government-mandated student loan cancellation represents a regressive and ineffective economic stimulus. For that reason, student loan cancellation is a bad policy.

The macroeconomic argument for student loan cancellation relies on a boost in consumer spending. When people become suddenly free from their debt, they will spend more income and boost the economy. [1]

That argument, however, does not reflect the entire picture. The cancellation represents an ineffective government redistribution of resources. It will result in an estimated $90 billion increase in cash flow, at the cost of $1.5 trillion. [2] In other words, the federal government risks sinking significantly in debt with a limited boost in consumer spending. Such a policy pales in comparison to other more direct and efficient means of government stimulus.

Student loan cancellation represents an economically regressive policy. The policy benefits exclusively those with high education backgrounds. The benefits increase proportionally to the amount of education. Unsurprisingly, these people are not the vulnerable group in society. About 75% of the cancellation will benefit people with people from the top 40% income level. [2] The conclusion applies to both universal and targeted cancellation. [3] Since the federal government will have to fund such an initiative with its revenues, the policy directs general government sources into specifically well-off groups. Such a policy does not hold to its progressive reputations.

For this reason, student loan cancellation is a bad policy.

[1]. Fullwiler, Scott, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Marshall Steinbaum. 2018. "The Macroeconomic Effects Of Student Debt Cancellation". Levy Institute. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf.

[2]. "Canceling Student Loan Debt Is Poor Economic Stimulus". 2020. Blog. Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget. http://www.crfb.org/blogs/canceling-student-loan-debt-poor-economic-stimulus.

[3]. Catherine, Sylvain, and Constantine Yannelis. 2020. "The Distributional Effects Of Student Loan Forgiveness". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3739900.

tl;dr: student loan cancellation is an economic stimulus. However, it is not an efficient one.

I do not dispute the benefits of student loan cancellation. The simple principle of the market indicates potential economic growth from the policy. However, a beneficial policy is not a good one, if there are more beneficial alternatives. Student loan cancellation targets only educated groups, who are far from the ones most in need of government help.

Like I previously indicated, two-thirds of the benefits from the policy go to the to 40% of the income earners. Aiding this group with tax revenues represents a regressive redistribution. Unless the policy can find unlikely extra sources of funding (military budget cuts, wealth tax, etc), the limited government resources can go to people much more in need of help.

Furthermore, the same issue limits the economic benefits of the policy. Aiding those most in need represents the most efficient policy, since they are much more likely to spend the money. Since educated people do not fall into that group, the costs of the policy far outweighs the benefits. The money needed for cancellation far exceeds the money it will generate in the market. Therefore, as a whole the policy does not constitute an effective economic stimulus.

As a student, I also find the U.S. education unfairly expensive. The price tag has caused many problems. That said, I try to remember that we students do not represent the group most in need.

That sentiment is not matter of oppression competition. Rather the calculation represents one of efficiency. Since the government is operating with finite resources, it would be better to use them on more vulnerable groups and more efficient policies.

If we stay in the realm of education, a policy like free community college or universal child care would likely deliver more comprehensive benefits (if executed well). These policies target more than relatively well-off college graduates (a strong emphasis on "relatively").

If we look at options within all the welfare programs covered by the federal budget, the options are almost infinite. Programs such as SNAP, TANF, or unemployment insurance all need more funding. Our infrastructure needs urgent updates. These will likely have more spill-over economic benefits than student loan cancellation.

TL;DR: Many policy reactions to major crimes have become products of hysteria and caused significant harm.

The argument for this topic centers around the shock values of crimes. Without a doubt, these policy changes have consistently occurred after cases of crimes. The question then becomes whether these responses turned out productive. Past examples offered mixed outcomes.

The 9/11 tragedy has had an enduring effect on the American psyche. Even 16 years after the original incident with no other major terrorist attacks, the vast majority of Americans considered chances of such attacks high. Many politicians and media figures exploited such fear for personal gains. However, this paranoia caused significant harm to Muslim Americans, as they bore unfair scrutiny in daily life. [1]

The mass paranoia has also led to many problematic policies. The federal government used the excuse of security to invade people’s privacy and rights, with the Patriot Act chief among the effort. These efforts often have unconstitutional elements and represented significant assaults on civil liberties. [2]

Overall, the story of post 9/11 policies contains more elements of traumatic overreaction than rational thinking. Similar examples exist in other countries. I do not deny the potential benefits of post-crime reflections. For me, the New Zealand reaction to the Christchurch shooting served as an excellent example of success. However, one should not automatically expect improvements after tragedies.

[1]. Chang, Alvin. 2017. "Americans' Sustained Fear From 9/11 Has Turned Into Something More Dangerous". Vox, , 2017. https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12852226/fear-witches-terrorists.

[2]. Bartosiewicz, Petra. 2012. "A Permanent War On Terror". Open Society Foundation. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/permanent-war-terror.

All political parties have internal differences. The defining factor of a party, however, depends on how it governs. A party becomes dangerous when it governs dangerously, not when every member of the party becomes dangerous. The current GOP has become significantly compromised by the Trump cult of personality. The erosion has taken over enough of the party that it can no longer govern responsibly. Despite its many sane members, the modern-day GOP represents a national security threat.

The corruption of the GOP starts at the grassroots. Despite the reckless lame-duck session, the GOP base has stood with the former President. The majority of GOP voters consider Trump a good influence and would favor him as a candidate for 2024. [1] More alarmingly, around 30% of GOP voters believe in the QAnon and endorse political violence in some form. [2] Their preferences cements the GOP as a reckless party in the foreseeable future.

One can point out the other side of the statistics. Many GOP voters do not like conspiracy theories or violence. However, the irrational fraction has so far exercised far more influence within the party even after the January 6 insurrection. Despite flirting with conspiracy theories and trying to overturn the 2020 election, the Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward won her reelection within the party. [3] Ronna "Not Romney” McDaniel remained as the GOP national committee chairwoman with Trump's endorsement. [4] Even with significant evidence, only ten Representatives and seven Senators from the GOP voted to impeach or convict Trump.

Many rational GOP voters and politicians want a serious GOP. The United States of America needs and deserves a serious GOP. However, the party has so far failed to reckon with its increasing descent into madness. Before that happens, the GOP will, unfortunately, represent a national security threat.

[1]. Talev, Margaret, and David Nather. 2021. "GOP Voters Choose Trump — Again". Axios, , 2021. https://www.axios.com/trump-mcconnell-republican-voters-69b27794-5557-44fe-80a6-d481adf15adf.html.

[2]. Cox, Daniel. 2021. "After The Ballots Are Counted: Conspiracies, Political Violence, And American Exceptionalism". Findings From The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey. Survey Center on American Life. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/after-the-ballots-are-counted-conspiracies-political-violence-and-american-exceptionalism/.

[3]. Armus, Teo. 2021. "Kelli Ward Led A Push To Overturn Biden’S Victory. Now Her Own Win As Arizona GOP Chair Is Being Questioned.". The Washington Post, , 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/28/arizona-gop-election-kelli-ward/.

[4]. Karni, Annie, and Mike Baker. 2021. "An Emboldened Extremist Wing Flexes Its Power In A Leaderless G.O.P.". The Washington Post, , 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/politics/republicans-trump-ronna-mcdaniel.html.

TL:DR: There is an economic rationale for delayed climate change actions.

Even among those who acknowledge climate change, widespread voices of optimism and incremental action exist. These people understand the impending existential crisis of climate change but choose to act slow. Why?

Because in their theory, climate change does not constitute a big problem, at least not yet. This theory centers around the economic concept of “discount rate.” In economics, every decision represents a cost-benefit analysis. To account for the whole picture, economists also factor in future costs or benefits. For example, buying a stock incurs a cost, but a potential rise in value can cause future benefits. However, the consensus goes that future costs/benefits do not have the same present value. For me, getting $10 today appears a better option than $10 tomorrow. Therefore, economists discount future values at a fixed cumulative rate. The longer one has to wait for the costs/benefits, the smaller the present value. That cumulative value explains the lack of enthusiasm for climate action among many. Even if by the end of the century, climate change will cost an unimaginable amount of $5 trillion, with a discount rate of 3%, the current value stands at $382 billion. That number seems modest compared to many more urgent issues, such as Covid-19 or a stock market crash (whose value does not go through many discounts due to the immediate effect).

A climate activist can respond to this with a (reasonable) question: then why don’t we fix it now since it would cost less? Why are we waiting for the threat to grow in size? The answer: opportunity cost. The present value of climate change does not match the costs of immediate climate action (hence no discount rate). Furthermore, one can believe in a more efficient time for such action in the future. The consensus among economists is that future generations will be richer than present ones due to long-term economic gain. Therefore, a future generation may have more resources to tackle climate change at less cost. This theory assumes a faster rate of global economic growth than the discount rate of climate impacts. When both the problem and the solutions are cumulating, but the latter at a faster rate, the prime time for action lies in the future.

Is the theory correct? That is hard to judge. For one thing, calculating the cost of climate change, the discount rate, and the numbers of discount years all involve complicated factors. Furthermore, considering the very human impact of climate change (e.g. the loss of lives due to a climate disaster), a simple economic calculation may raise ethical concerns. Nevertheless, discount rates offer a scientific, rational, and widespread justification for slow climate action.

Roberts, David. 2012. "Discount Rates: A Boring Thing You Should Know About (With Otters!)". Grist. https://grist.org/article/discount-rates-a-boring-thing-you-should-know-about-with-otters/.

TL;DR: Banning celebrities from the OnlyFans platform may represent an ethical action beneficial to sex workers. However, the action runs counter to corporate responsibility and the current rule of the market. Therefore, while OnlyFans SHOULD take that action, it CANNOT and WILL NOT.

OnlyFans’s corporate does not bear any responsibility to its users. OnlyFans is a for-profit business entity, and thus profit represents its primary goal. Having celebrities on its platform will no doubt leads to profit maximization. What, then, of the many sex workers on the OnlyFans? They fall out of the company’s legal responsibility. The U.S. corporate law structure mandates companies to consider only the benefits of their stakeholders and nobody else. While new concepts have started to challenge that legal premise, they have yet to have a significant impact. [1] Therefore, when the celebrity presence results in a conflict of interests between users and stakeholders, OnlyFans is legally obligated to think of only the latter.

The celebrity phenomenon exists unchecked beyond OnlyFans. Technology has long served as a stimulus for a widening economic gap. The phenomenon, called the superstar effect, happens when a capable person uses technology to maximize their clients and work efficiency. As the principle of the market goes, more work means more rewards. [2] Celebrities on OnlyFans represent merely the most recent example of such a phenomenon. Therefore, it seems unrealistic, and almost unfair, to ask OnlyFans to curb a wide-spread economic trend.

OnlyFans is a profit-driven company. It is not exempted from the wider framework of corporate law and economic principles. For this reason, one cannot expect it to stand as an exception to take the counterproductive step of censoring celebrities.

[1]. Strine, Leo E., Lawrence A. Hamermesh, and Matthew Jennejohn. 2013. "Putting Stockholders First, Not The First-Filed Complaint". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2200499.

[2]. Kaplan, Steven N, and Joshua Rauh. 2013. "It's The Market: The Broad-Based Rise In The Return To Top Talent". Journal Of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 35-56. doi:10.1257/jep.27.3.35.

TL;DR: Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan presents a unique opportunity to balance the need of the environment, the economy, and energy sector workers. For this reason, this plan should prioritize environmental concerns.

The infrastructure plan should include federal subsidies for the energy transition. Congressional Democrats have already presented a clean energy tax break as an essential part of the upcoming plan. [1] Such tax programs in the past have stimulated significant economic gains and created the clean energy industry of today. Solar and wind energy particularly benefited from the subsidies. Over the past ten years, the wind energy industry has created about 114,000 jobs and $760 million in tax revenues. Solar energy has grown by 10,000 percent and generated $140 billion in economic activity. [2] Considering the likely slow recovery of the U.S. economy after the Covid-19 Pandemic, a green infrastructure plan can significantly stimulate the clean energy industry and empower economic growth.

The infrastructure plan can ease the energy transition for fossil fuel workers. Currently, millions of workers in the U.S. still rely on fossil fuels for employment. A necessary energy transition could damage their livelihoods and hurt energy-dependent areas. An infrastructure stimulus, however, can soften the blow. The plan can allow different projects to provide jobs and economic activities. Research has suggested a particular benefit to low-income groups and people of color from these projects. [3] Therefore, the infrastructure plan offers a rare opportunity for a smooth and harmless energy transition.

For these reasons, Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan should prioritize environmental concerns.

[1]. Davidson, Laura, and Jennifer Dlouhy. 2021. "Democrats To Push Clean-Energy Tax Breaks In Infrastructure Plan". Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-12/democrats-to-push-clean-energy-tax-breaks-in-infrastructure-plan.

[2]. Smith, Grant, and Bill Walker. 2021. "Federal Energy Subsidies: What Are We Getting For Our Money?". Ewg.Org. https://www.ewg.org/energy/22777/federal-energy-subsidies-what-are-we-getting-our-money.

[3]. Raimi, Daniel. 2020. "Environmental Remediation And Infrastructure Policies Supporting Workers And Communities In Transition". Resources For the Future. https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/environment-infrastructure-fairness-workers-communities/.

TL;DR: A tax on sugary drinks can incentivize people to adopt a better diet and improve long-term health outcomes. For this reason, the U.S. should tax sugary drinks to promote healthy diets.

The U.S. has a widespread problem with healthy diets. Around 40% of Americans are obese, and about 10% have diabetes. The issue has caused economic loss, reduced productivity, and exacerbated racial inequality. [1] Sugary drinks have served as an important source of the problem. One-third of added sugar in American diets comes from beverages for both adults and children. [2, 3]

Only a national-scale sugary drink tax could act as an effective disincentive. When local governments imposed such a policy in the past, people avoided the tax by purchasing drinks in close vicinities. [1] In Mexico, the national sugary drink tax proved very effective in changing public behaviors. Consumptions of targeted drinks decreased by 5.5% in the first year and 9.7% in the second. [4] If imposed in America, the tax can save 500,000 lives and $100 billion in health care expenditures. [5] Therefore, this tax has meaningful health, economic, and social benefits.

For this reason, The United States should tax sugary drinks to promote healthy diets.

[1]. Reeves, Richard. 2020. "Promote Health Equity By Taxing Sugary Drinks And Doubling Support For Community Health Centers". Brookings Blueprints For American Renewal & Prosperity. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/promote-health-equity-by-taxing-sugary-drinks-and-doubling-support-for-community-health-centers/

[2]. Moshfegh, Alanna, Anne Garceau, Elizabeth Parker, and John Clemens. 2019. "Beverage Choices Among Adults: What We Eat In America, NHANES 2015-2016". Dietary Data Brief. Food Surveys Research Group. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/21_Beverage_choices_adults_1516.pdf.

[3]. Moshfegh, Alanna, Anne Garceau, Elizabeth Parker, and John Clemens. 2019. "Beverage Choices Among Children: What We Eat In America, NHANES 2015-2016". Dietary Data Brief. Food Surveys Research Group. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/22_Beverage_choices_children_1516.pdf.

[4]. Colchero, M. Arantxa, Juan Rivera-Dommarco, Barry M. Popkin, and Shu Wen Ng. 2017. "In Mexico, Evidence Of Sustained Consumer Response Two Years After Implementing A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax". Health Affairs 36 (3): 564-571. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231.

[5]. Lee, Yujin, Dariush Mozaffarian, Stephen Sy, Junxiu Liu, Parke E. Wilde, Matti Marklund, Shafika Abrahams-Gessel, Thomas A. Gaziano, and Renata Micha. 2020. "Health Impact And Cost-Effectiveness Of Volume, Tiered, And Absolute Sugar Content Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policies In The United States". Circulation 142 (6): 523-534. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.042956.

I think the issue is that far more Americans are drinking traditionally defined "sugary drinks" than juice and Kombucha. Hence, I would expect the outcome of such a tax to be mainly positive. Furthermore, the tax scheme can be used to fund more healthy diet policies, such as providing free and healthy school lunches for children. These programs can have a better effect on healthy diets than the sugary tax itself.

You are very correct in pointing out some of the externalities of the policy. However, I would argue that in this case the positive outweighs the negative.

Tl;dr: Telecommuting can help reverse the significant geographical inequality in the U.S.

For years, the growth in the United States has concentrated in a few cities. These superstar cities, such as New York and San Francisco, play a disproportionate role in the national economy. They take up most of the job growth, entrepreneurship, and economic activities in the country. On the other hand, Small cities and rural areas have seen a decline in population, opportunities, and culture. Such a trend has caused significant issues on many fronts. The superstar cities have become increasingly crowded and expensive. Low-income workers often struggle to find affordable housing close to their work. Politically, urban and rural areas have drifted apart in ideologies and intensified polarization. Simply put, America has become two different societies.

Telecommuting, incentivized by the Covid-19 crisis, can change that. The disconnection between residence and work opportunities can drive people away from expensive superstar cities. According to U-Haul’s annual review, coastal states and expensive cities saw significant out-migration in 2020. If the trend continues, the rest of the country may see an influx of well-off people. Such an influx can lead to an increase in local tax revenues and economic demands. Over time, America can have an equal distribution of economic activities and labor force. Liberal ideas can expand the handful of urban cores. These welcoming trends can ease many social, economic, and political problems of the current era.

“I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.” said Hilliary Clinton. [2] If telecommuting can flourish beyond the Covid-19 crisis, that description may expand to far more places in the United States.

[1]. Spross, Jeff. 2018. "Hillary Clinton's Revealing Economic Elitism". The Week, , 2018. https://theweek.com/articles/760606/hillary-clintons-revealing-economic-elitism.

[2]. Thompson, Derek. 2020. "Superstar Cities Are In Trouble". The Atlantic, , 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/remote-work-revolution/617842/.

tl, dr: the advantages of private prisons are mixed at best

The so-called flexibility argument for private prisons can itself induce issues. Private prisons have no obligation to give public records or data. The lack of transparency has disadvantaged states in negotiating contracts with and keeping track of private prisons. States often sign contracts with private prisons without having a clear cost outlook. This problem cost the state of Florida $3.3 million over three years. In New Mexico, the state authorities could not verify a 10% overcrowding in several private prisons. [1] The flexibility argument for private prisons ignores the incentives of abuse from these private actors. When the system is “made more efficient,” one must ask the question of for whom, the private prison owners or the public interest? In most cases, the answer seems to indicate only the former.

Private prisons represent the wrong answer to the overpopulation of public ones. Research has indicated a significant issue of mass incarceration in the United States. The problem has negative fiscal, social, and emotional consequences. [2] Private prisons, however, seems the sole beneficiary of the problem. In other words, between two solutions to mass incarceration, criminal justice reforms can benefit the public, while private prisons enrich only the prison owners. Therefore, private prisons represent an inadequate solution to overcrowded public prisons.

Lastly, the public safety effect of private prisons is at least inconclusive. A study in Minnesota discovered a 22% increase in arrests and a 13% increase in conviction among private prison inmates compared to their counterparts. The study attributes the effects to the lack of programs and resources in private prisons due to their aim to cut costs. Therefore, I must ask whether the Arkansas study compared the statistics of private prisons with public ones. Without such a comparison, the rehabilitative benefits of private prisons remain pessimistic.

For these reasons, private prisons do not show significant benefits on any fronts.

[1]. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2017. "Private Prison: The Wrong Choice For Alabama". Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_policybrief_alabama_private_privatization_web.pdf.

[2]. American Civil Liberty Union. 2011. "BANKING ON BONDAGE: Private Prisons And Mass Incarceration". American Civil Liberty Union. https://www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration.

The Section 230 legal shield for social media represents one of the most consequential laws on Internet regulation. It has allowed the flourishing of the Internet and minimized the negative impacts. For this reason, it should remain an established law.

Section 230 protects social media platforms from liability of content by their users. Therefore, the technology platforms do not have to share responsibility with their users. Subsequently, the law allows these companies to monitor their contents without violating the First Amendment. [1] Recently, Section 230 has received bipartisan criticism, though for different reasons.

Without Section 230, the Internet may become very restricted. The absence of Section 230 opens platforms to myriad lawsuits for every questionable user comment. To filter these speeches, platforms will have to devote significant resources to content monitoring. The users will find themselves permitted to post limited content and experience significant censorship. Such an outcome will prove detrimental to technology companies, Internet users, and the society at large.

Alternatively, repealing Section 230 can lead to an underregulated Internet. With Section 230, social media platforms become legally equivalent to publishers. Publishers can become liable for their contents since they typically moderate their publishing content in advance. To escape the legal threat, social media platforms can go the opposite of censorship. If they choose not to monitor any content, they have a better legal case of claiming no liability. In such a case, content rightfully regulated, such as child pornography and violent threat, can become widespread. While some on the political left credited Section 230 to the proliferation of hate speech, the alternative may become much worse. [3]

Section 230 is in no way perfect. However, it proves as a viable alternative to overregulation or deregulation of the Internet. For this reason, the U.S. Section 230 legal shield should remain.

[1]. Siripurapu, Anshu. 2020. "Trump And Section 230: What To Know". Blog. Council On Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know.

[2]. St. John, Allen. 2021. "What Congress' Section 230 Debate Means For The Future Of Online Speech". Consumer Reports. https://www.consumerreports.org/federal-laws-regulations/what-is-section-230-communications-decency-act/.

[3]. Wakabayashi, Daisuke. 2020. "Legal Shield For Social Media Is Targeted By Lawmakers". The New York Times, , 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-internet-speech.html.

Net neutrality represents an essential regulatory tool to ensure free speech on the Internet. The U.S. should restore this policy immediately.

Net neutrality bans Internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down Internet access for selected websites. It mandates indiscriminate treatments from ISPs to all online information. [1]

The lack of net neutrality threatens online freedom of speech. The Internet has become an integral tool for organization and expression across the political spectrum. The lack of net neutrality enables ISPs to block access to any websites of their choice. Such a powerful tool can lead to significant erosion of the freedom of speech by business and political authorities. For example, At&T can block comments critical of its business. [2] On a political level, opinions deemed unfavorable can receive legal censorship. If pushed to an extreme, the lack of regulation allows complete censorship, akin to China’s “Great Firewall” program. Such authority infringes on the First Amendment of the United States and a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. [3]

For the sake of free speech, the U.S. should restore net neutrality.

[1]. McSherry, Corynne. 2017. "An Attack On Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech". Blog. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech.

[2]. Vanden Heuvel, Katrina. 2017. Net Neutrality Is the Free Speech Fight of Our Generation Rebecca Vallas Interview by . In person.

[3]. Travers, Georgia. 2018. "Net Neutrality: What’S At Stake And Why It Matters". Blog. Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic. https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/net-neutrality-whats-stake-and-why-it-matters.

The electoral college system defines a unique feature of the U.S. democratic system. It allows for a split between popular vote results and the electoral outcome. Many have seen this as anti-democratic. Such rhetorics intensified significantly after the divisive 2016 and 2020 elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won the election 304-227 votes, despite losing the popular votes by 2 million. In 2020, he used the prolonged process of the system in his attempt to overturn his defeat, setting up political and legal challenges at each conjecture. As a result, the call to abolish the system has gained traction particularly among Democrats, who have been disadvantaged by the system twice in the past twenty years. However, the electoral college system does not bear sole responsibility for the weakness in the U.S.democracy. On the contrary, it has reduced polarization and limited election chaos. Therefore, electoral college abolishment is not an effective fix to the democratic weakness in the U.S.

The electoral college system discourages polarization. Considering its possible spit from the popular votes, presidential candidates must aim beyond a simple majority of 50.1%. They must appeal to more moderate and swing voters, which can temper extreme and radical views. In practice, it prevents both parties from only energizing their bases in deep-blue or deep-red states and forces them to build coalitions. Such a strategy has promoted several consensus candidates, from Ronald Reagan’s landslide to Bill Clinton’s “third-way coalition.” [1] Without the electoral college, one may witness a GOP oriented around Texas and a Democratic party geared towards California. The results of such a strategy would further divide the country and radicalize U.S. politics. It could fuel future populist candidates, ones differing in politics from but similar in approaches to Donald Trump. Therefore, while the electoral college does not rule out the rise of populism and polarization, it plays a role in tempering it.

The electoral college limits weaknesses in the U.S. democratic structure. The 2020 election exposed almost every flaw in the U.S. electoral system. The Republican Party engaged in substantial voter suppression efforts before the election. After his defeat, former President Donald Trump utilized state legislatures, courts, state election officials, and Congress to overturn the election. The electoral college’s prolonged procedure does play a role in the chaotic episode. It implements roles for various levels of government after Election Day and allows for procedural disruption. However, these represent more the byproducts of the system rather than the system itself. Without the electoral college, such disputes could become national, instead of the state-specific disputes in previous elections. [2] Without the current system, the close 2000 election could have gone beyond the state of Florida. Al Gore could have called for a national-level recount of votes. The 2020 election could have seen Donald Trump intervening in the electoral process of every state. Therefore, the electoral college does not bear significant responsibility for the democratic weakness in the U.S. On the contrary, it has played a role in damage control by limiting the potential disputes to a small number of states.

The U.S. election system survived an extraordinary stress test in the 2020 election circle. The need for change cannot be overstated. However, the electoral college represents an obvious, but a poor target of the reform. It has played significant roles in maintaining the electoral process in the U.S. Any talks of abolishment must take into account such nuances.

For these reasons, the electoral college system has a raison d’etat.

[1]. Douthat, Ross. 2019. "A Case For The Electoral College". The New York Times, , 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/opinion/electoral-college.html.

[2]. Spilerman, Seymour. 2020. "The Case For Keeping The Electoral College". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/29/electoral-college-recount-meltdown/.

I do not necessarily agree with everything I wrote here. Intuitively, I think they are not particularly strong arguments. However, upon examination I do find them compelling and not easy to dismiss.

I don't think there is hard data. However, there are examples. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden won the popular vote, but only Biden won the election. Data has suggested that Biden outperformed Hillary particularly in the suburbs. These areas are known to favor moderate policies and stabilities. At least in the foreseeable future , they will serve as a main swing voting blocks. To appeal to them, both parties should nominate moderate candidates.

With the electoral college, Democrats can focus much more on urban hubs, areas with a much more progressive stances. Republicans can focus on their hard-core supporters in conservative areas.

Faithless electors are very rare. The idea gained tractions in 2016. However, in that case most of them were actually electors for the losing candidate Hillary Clinton. They attempted to strike a deal with some Trump electors to force the election into the House of Representatives. They received bipartisan rejections. Since then, both parties have been much more careful to select loyal electors. Many states also have law to ban and replace faithless electors. Such law has received unanimous approval from the Supreme Court in a recent case. Therefore, faithless electors don't really represent a significant issue.

TL;DR: “The Western Balkans belong in the EU,” said the European Union (EU) Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Post-Brexit, the EU has renewed its focus enlargement into the Western Balkans. The initiative targets Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia, with the ultimate goal of making them EU member states. [1] Challenges exist. These countries have yet to fulfill all necessary reforms for the EU membership. Enlargement seems untimely considering the growing split within the block on many fronts. However, the enlargement represents a crucial step for the European, the EU’s international influence, and regional stability in the Western Balkans. For these reasons, The EU should pursue enlargement into the Western Balkans.

The Western Balkans have already established significant economic ties with the EU. The block serves as the most crucial economic partner of the countries in the region. At least 70% of total trades with the Western Balkans occur with the European Union. The dominance furthers on exports, despite the influence of China and Russia. Emigration and remittances also connect the EU with the Western Balkans. The blocks serve as the predominant destination for migration out of the region. It has also become a significant source of remittances, an integral part of the regional economy. The EU has also given more foreign investment to the region more than any other country. [2] In 2020, the European Central Bank pledged €1.7 billion Covid-19 assistance to the area. [1] Considering these economic ties, the EU enlargement into the Western Balkans represents the natural next step for further economic partnership. Joining the single market can become an economic booster for both the block and the region.

The enlargement can ensure EU influence in the region. The Western Balkans has emerged as a geopolitical battleground. Russia remains a formidable player in the area. It has tried to align itself with the Western Balkans and competed with the EU influence. China has also extended its “One Road, One Belt” ambition into the area. [3] The EU has seen both countries as competitors, if not rivals. Considering the proximity between the EU and the Western Balkans, the EU must play an active role in shaping the region. Therefore, the enlargement becomes the most powerful tool for the EU to seal its geopolitical dominance over the region.

The enlargement can promote regional stability. The Western Balkans have historically seen various conflicts. Some of them remain today, despite the improvements of many bilateral relations. The incentive from the enlargement can promote the countries in the region to settle the disputes permanently. Bilateral relations can thaw between Serbia and Kosovo, between Greece and North Macedonia, etc. [4] These ties can ensure stability in a previously chaotic region.

Upon entering office in 2019, President Von der Leyen promised a geopolitical EU Commission. She can fulfill her promise by pursuing the EU enlargement into the Western Balkans.

[1]. Tidey, Alice. 2020. "'The Western Balkans Belong In The EU', Says Ursula Von Der Leyen". Euronews, , 2020. https://www.euronews.com/2020/05/06/the-western-balkans-belong-in-the-eu-says-ursula-von-der-leyen.

[2]. Dabrowski, Marek, and Yana Myachenkova. 2018. "The Western Balkans On The Road To The European Union". Bruegel. https://www.bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PC-04_2018.pdf.

[3]. Larsen, Henrik. 2020. "The Western Balkans Between The EU, NATO, Russia And China". CSS Analyses In Security Policy. Center for Security Studies. https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CSSAnalyse263-EN.pdf.

[4]. Huszka, Beáta. 2020. "The Power Of Perspective: Why EU Membership Still Matters In The Western Balkans". European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the_power_of_perspective_why_eu_membership_still_matters_in_western_balkans/.

TL;DR: Universal Basic Income (UBI) constitutes a significant remaking of the safety net system. Unlike traditional welfare programs, UBI gives equal financial benefits to everyone regardless of their income level. While the refreshing idea seems to respond to many emerging crises, it has little practicality. UBI comes at a significant price, reduces labor market participation, and fails to promote mobility. For these reasons, UBI is a bad policy.

UBI has an unsustainable and destructive price tag. An annual UBI of $10000 to U.S. residents will cost the federal government $3 trillion in a year. Over a decade, the price lies between $30 trillion to $40 trillion. Few viable means exist to pay for such drastic expansion of federal spending. Some proponents have advocated substituting the UBI for the conventional welfare programs. That measure would still not balance the budget. Furthermore, current welfare programs differ from UBI in their particular focus on vulnerable groups. A substitution to UBI would effectively force these groups to share resources with everyone else in the society. Therefore, the expensive price tag of UBI will not benefit those most in need and will redistribute resources upwards. On the contrary, the elimination of existing programs can force many into poverty even with the help of UBI. [1]

UBI discourages labor participation. When people get paid for nothing, they will have less incentive to work. A UBI experiment from the late 1960s to the 1980s proved this theory. Among recipients, UBI reduced working hours by 9% for husbands, 20% for wives, and 25% for single women. In general, every $1000 of UBI benefits leads to a $660 loss of earned income. In such a case, about 66% of government investment in UBI would go to waste. [2] This incentive away from the labor market may become particularly impactful among those marginalized. [3] In the long run, the trend can reduce economic development and standards of living. [4]

UBI has an ineffective role in promoting social mobility. Existing safety-net programs aim at vulnerable groups because they exhibit more returns with government investment. A non-specific program like UBI will fail on that front. Studies have shown that government subsidies have little, if not detrimental, impact on high-income households. UBI can lead the government to spend money with insignificant outcomes on social mobility. [3] Furthermore, UBI’s effects will grow worse over time and disproportionately affect younger generations. [5] At a time when social mobility is decreasing, UBI can make matters worse for future generations.

For these reasons, UBI is a bad policy.

[1]. Greenstein, Robert. 2019. "Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It". Blog. Center On Budget And Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-opportunity/commentary-universal-basic-income-may-sound-attractive-but-if-it.

[2]. Menon, Vijay. 2018. "Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried Before. It Didn’T Work.". Blog. Foundation Of Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/universal-basic-income-has-been-tried-before-it-didn-t-work/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAmfmABhCHARIsACwPRAAxCWCa3aIf2bo1pXIt91Kx7WtKqoXp9pyfL0qdcipg5GYrd1NrARwaAvGoEALw_wcB.

[3]. Kearney, Melissa, and Magne Mogstad. 2019. "Universal Basic Income (UBI) As A Policy Response To Current Challenges". The Aspen Institute. https://economicstrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Maintaining-the-Strength-of-American-Capialism-Universal-Basic-Income-UBI-as-a-Policy-Response-to-Current-Challenges.pdf.

[4].Minogue, Rachel. 2018. "Five Problems With Universal Basic Income". Third Way. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/five-problems-with-universal-basic-income.

[5]. Daruich, Diego, and Raquel Fernández. 2021. "Universal Basic Income: A Dynamic Assessment". NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed February 6. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27351/w27351.pdf.

Tl;dr: School vouchers want to promote education choices. The program allows students to repurpose their tax contribution to local public schools, and use it to attend different (and often private) schools. In theory, the policy allows parents the freedom to choose the best schools for their children. The increased competition should also incentivize public schools to improve their education. These promises have come up empty. School vouchers have caused no visible improvement in student achievement, deprived public school funding, and threatened civil liberty. For these reasons, the United States should not promote school vouchers.

School vouchers have produced, at best, mixed results on student achievement. A study on such a program in Louisiana showed student backsliding. After two years, participants performed 13% worse on math, and 7% worse on English than their public school peers. [1] Studies of other programs discovered similar negative or no significant results (except one program in Washington D.C.). [2,3] Furthermore, these studies identified a concerning trend. In all cases, participants’ performance dropped significantly right after switching schools. In effect, they spend the rest of their school years to catch up, an endeavor with little guarantee of success. Since most of these programs target disadvantaged students, such a gamble becomes especially difficult to justify. In this case, policymakers should focus on doing no harm, rather than chasing untenable gains.

School vouchers can become a financial burden on public schools. Despite the free-market appearance, school vouchers cost significant financial resources. Since school vouchers allow parents to opt-out of local school taxes, struggling public schools can suffer from loss of revenues. Beyond the competition for tax bases, school vouchers also require government investment. A national school vouchers program can cost $15 billion before it even starts. Such investment could go to public schools in need of more funding. [4] Therefore, school vouchers can become a distraction and take away needed resources for the public school system.

School vouchers threaten civil liberties. Public schools must follow civil liberty rules as a condition of their funding. Private schools, many of them religious, do not share such a responsibility. School vouchers can direct public funding to discriminatory institutions. Many participant schools can legally reject students with disabilities or other religious views. Such policies can lead to an inequality of options between different groups. Some schools also lack in their anti-discriminatory policies around gender and sexuality. Under-informed parents may accidentally subject their children to unfair treatment in schools. [5] The possibility of publicly funded discrimination casts a shadow on school vouchers.

School vouchers fail to live up to their promises. The program can damage students, public schools, and civil liberties. For these reasons, the United States should not promote school vouchers.

[1]. Mills, Jonathan N., and Patrick J. Wolf. 2017. "Vouchers In The Bayou: The Effects Of The Louisiana Scholarship Program On Student Achievement After 2 Years". Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis 39 (3): 464-484. doi:10.3102/0162373717693108.

[2]. Dynarski, Mark, and Austin Nichols. 2017. "More Findings About School Vouchers And Test Scores, And They Are Still Negative". Evidence Speaks Reports. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ccf_20170713_mdynarski_evidence_speaks1.pdf.

[3]. Chingos, Matthew. 2018. "The Effect Of The DC School Voucher Program On College Enrollment". Education Policy Program. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96686/the_effect_of_the_dc_school_voucher_program_on_college_enrollment_3.pdf.

[4]. People for the American Way Foundation. 2021. "The Facts About School Vouchers". People for the American Way Foundation. http://files.pfaw.org/pfaw_files/file_136.pdf.

[5]. Fiddiman, Bayliss, and Jessica Yin. 2019. "The Danger Private School Voucher Programs Pose To Civil Rights". Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/05/10124230/Vouchers-and-Civil-Rights2.pdf?_ga=2.30172287.1526012639.1612470896-1122978126.1610142573.

**Tl;dr: The filibuster has found an enemy in the U.S. Democratic Party. Despite the increasing partisanship around the issue, the procedure itself does not necessarily favor either party in the Senate. On the contrary, the filibuster represents an important procedural pillar for a stable and fair U.S. Senate. It ensures reasonable legislation, protects people’s voices, and encourages bipartisanship. For these reasons, the U.S. Senate should keep the filibuster. **

The filibuster prevents extreme policies from both parties. The progressive wing of the Democratic party sees filibuster as the essential hindrance of their agenda. Without the procedure, the Democratic Senate can take up issues such as gun control and climate policies. However, the threat of the filibuster can go both ways. The filibuster has also prevented some extreme conservative priorities, such as significant restrictions on abortions and estate tax cuts. [1] On the other hand, the example of judicial nominees should serve as a warning for filibuster critics. After efforts from both parties, judicial nominees became one of the few exceptions to the filibuster rule. As a result, the Trump Administration installed an unusual number of judges into the federal court system. Nearly a quarter of current judges come from the Trump Administration. Compared to nominees from previous presidents, the Trump nominees were more white, more male, and less qualified. [3,4] Therefore, the filibuster prevents extreme and partisan legislation.

The filibuster can become a tool for the voice of the population majority. Despite the new Democratic control, the Republican Party still maintains a structural advantage in the Senate. [5] Republicans will see better prospects of capturing the control in the foreseeable future. The filibuster may become a tool for the Democratic Party. Since the Democratic Party has become the typical winner of the popular vote and the representation of the population majority, the filibuster can hinder the minority-supported Republican Senate control. Therefore, the filibuster may ensure a voice for the population majority.

The filibuster can strengthen bipartisanship cooperation. The filibuster forces any successful legislation to have bipartisan appeal. It gives the minority party and even individual senators the power to influence policy decisions. The need for bipartisanship forces the two parties to cooperate on important issues. [6,7] In the era of hyper-polarization, such cooperation can become valuable.

The filibuster procedure ensures stable policymaking, promotes different voices and encourages cross-party cooperation. For these reasons, the U.S. Senate should keep the filibuster.

[1]. Tausanovitch, Alex, and Sam Berger. 2019. "The Impact Of The Filibuster On Federal Policymaking". Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/.

[2]. Thiessen, Marc. 2021. "Opinion: Democrats Have Vigorously Used The Filibuster. It’S Pathetic They Now Won’T Pledge To Protect It". The Washington Post, , 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/.

[3]. Gramlich, John. 2021. "How Trump Compares With Other Recent Presidents In Appointing Federal Judges". Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/.

[4]. Gregory, Patrick. 2018. "Trump Picks More ‘Not Qualified’ Judges (1)". Bloomberg Law, , 2018. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1.

[5]. Drutman, Lee. 2020. "The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’T Help Republicans Until Now.". FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-has-always-favored-smaller-states-it-just-didnt-help-republicans-until-now/.

[6]. Huder, Josh. 2015. "Obama Wants Filibuster Reform. Would It Help Polarization". Blog. The Government Affairs Institute At Georgetown University. https://gai.georgetown.edu/obama-wants-filibuster-reform-would-it-help-polarization/.

[7]. Kasich, John. 2020. "As Goes The Filibuster, So Goes Cooperation In Congress". The Hill, , 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/517474-as-goes-the-filibuster-so-goes-cooperation-in-congress?rl=1.

Discrimination is no casual word. It implies harmful consequences beyond simple grievances and negative attitudes. One group must actively or implicitly cause harm to another to justify the use of the ugly word. Homophobia and heterophobia may sound like two sides of a coin, two issues with similar magnitudes. They are not. Far from it. Homophobia represents a present, significant and overwhelming threat to the LGBTQ+ community. Heterophobia does not constitute significant harm to qualify as discrimination.

What does homophobia mean? It means your right to marriage came down to one vote of a heterosexual judge only six years ago.[1] It means in 29 U.S. states you can legally lose employment, housing, or public accommodations for their orientation.[2] You can become a target in approximately 16.7% of all hate crimes in the United States.[3] You can legally receive forced conversion therapy, a pseudo-scientific and harmful practice, in 20 states.[4] You can be refused services at the discretion of the business owners.[5] You may not be able to adopt a child in 20 states.[6] While progress has represented the past decade for LGBTQ+ rights, homophobia still perpetuates every aspect of daily life and causes significant harm for LOBTQ+ people.

What harm has heterophobia done? How have you suffered when someone casually labeled you “straight”? How have you suffered when a crossdresser is performing on TV? How have you suffered when your way of life no longer dominates the media and pop culture? What significant harm can and will an antagonistic gay person do to you when you hold the upper hand in every aspect of society?

Power enables harm, and harm constitutes discrimination. Between straight people and the LGBTQ+ group, only one holds the power and is capable of discrimination. Heterophobia represents a license for the privilege. It gives excuses to resist social change, to retain power and space not entitled to straight people in the first place. Calling it discrimination is factually, morally, and historically wrong.

[1]. Liptak, Adam. 2015. "Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage A Right Nationwide". The New York Times, , 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html.

[2]. "LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination In 29 States". 2021. Freedom For All Americans. https://freedomforallamericans.org/states/.

[3]. Human Rights Watch. 2020. "NEW FBI HATE CRIMES REPORT SHOWS INCREASES IN ANTI-LGBTQ ATTACKS New FBI Hate Crimes Report Shows Increases In Anti-LGBTQ Attacks". https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/new-fbi-hate-crimes-report-shows-increases-in-anti-lgbtq-attacks.

[4]. "Conversion Therapy Bans By U.S. State". 2021. Born Perfect. https://bornperfect.org/facts/conversion-therapy-bans-by-state/.

[5]. Barnes, Robert. 2019. "Supreme Court Passes On Case Involving Baker Who Refused To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple". The Washington Post, , 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-passes-on-new-case-involving-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake/2019/06/17/f78c5ae0-7a71-11e9-a5b3-34f3edf1351e_story.html.

[6]. "Foster And Adoption Laws". 2021. Lgbtmap.Org. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/foster_and_adoption_laws.

To avoid unnecessary discussions about wordings, let's use your definition of discrimination (one that does not require harm). In this case, I do concede there is heterosexual discrimination. However, I want to inquiry you on two matters.

First, it appears to me that straight discrimination differs from LGBTQ+ discrimination not just by degree. Instead, the two are categorically different. LGBTQ+ discrimination is systemic. It perpetuates important institutions in our society. Straight discrimination is personal. It goes from people to people. There are no laws, regulations, or prevalent pressures against straight people from actors such as the government, churches, or the private sector. This distinction is important because only systemic issues require systemic solutions. In other words, this distinction would mean any social movement of sexuality equality should still focus on LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Second, it appears to me that straight discrimination stems from heteronormativity. LGBTQ+ groups have received active derogatory portray from society. Myths have seen them as pedophiles, HIV infected, etc. On the other hand, most generalizations of straight people come from outdated standards of heteronormativity. In other words, the derogatory insults of straight people are not the active creations of LGBTQ+ people. Instead, they used the heteronormative standards in a negative tone. For example, the idea that straight people are "boring at sex" comes from the heteronormative standard that sees straight as the default. This conclusion is significant because it establishes heteronormativity as the root problem in the discussion of sexuality discourse. In other words, straight discrimination is not separate but a byproduct of our society's questionable expectations of heterosexuality.

Overall, under your definition of discrimination, I concur with your arguments. However, I raise the two issues above for your attention.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and the U.S. federal government wants to guarantee that. Currently, the U.S. has various safety net programs for vulnerable households and individuals, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These programs all have work requirements. To qualify for the benefit, applicants must find and retain employment. The barrier intends to discourage unnecessary reliance on the government and promote self-sufficiency. However, work requirements have proven a failure. The U.S. should remove them from safety net programs.

Work requirements do not promote employment or self-sufficiency. According to various studies over decades, work requirements do not result in job retention rates above the labor market average. Even when families do find more work, most of them remain in poverty. In Kansas, families pushed out of TANF by work requirements had average annual incomes of $2175. In other words, work requirements ended these families’ ties with TANF but failed to induce any self-sufficiency. [1] Fundamentally, work requirements do not serve as an adequate solution to welfare reliance. Most participants in these programs belong to a working household. Their needs for government assistance results from the stagnant wages for low-skilled workers, rather than a lack of incentive. [2] Thus, work requirements misjudge the root cause of poverty and unemployment and do little to mitigate either.

Work requirements could hurt work participation and self-sufficiency. More than 80% of participants of SNAP join the program when in between jobs. About one in eight participants works in a low-wage job and cannot escape poverty. The introduction of work requirements can strip these groups away from needed assistance. [1] The loss of income could destabilize their life, and thus their employment. They may become unable to pay for necessities, such as food, rent, and health expenses. These hardships could hurt a household’s long-term path to stable employment and self-sufficiency. Thus, work requirements bar assistance to households that could potentially use the money to achieve employment and financial stability. In this sense, work requirements become counterproductive to job participation and self-sufficiency.

Work requirements disproportionately hurt vulnerable groups. Work requirements strip assistance from people with physical and mental health issues. For people out of the labor forces for more than two years, a significant number of them cited health concerns as the main reason. [3] Thus, work requirements put extra constraints on those already disadvantaged. The issue also applies to those with clinically identified disabilities. While exemptions exist for people with disabilities, they require substantial proof and go through the excessive bureaucracy. Many with disabilities find themselves unable to perform these tasks sufficiently and thus shut out of needed assistance. Therefore, work requirements pose extra burdens to an already vulnerable group.

For these reasons, the U.S. should remove work requirements from safety net programs.

[1]. Hahn, Heather. 2018. "Work Requirements In Safety Net Programs". Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98086/work_requirements_in_safety_net_programs_1.pdf.

[2]. Schultz, Eliza, Anusha Ravi, and Rebecca Vallas. 2017. "Work Requirement Proposals Would Kick Struggling Workers When They’Re Down". Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2017/11/02/442052/work-requirement-proposals-kick-struggling-workers-theyre/.

[3]. Bauer, Lauren, Diane Whitemore Schanzenbach, and Jay Shambaugh. 2018. "Work Requirements And Safety Net Programs". The Hamilton Project. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WorkRequirements_EA_web_1010_2.pdf.

I am not certain there is an incentive issue with the U.S. programs. Most of these programs are very restrictive in their benefits. They often only apply to specific groups (only families with children qualify for TANF and SNAP), and they often target specific basic needs (food, housing, etc). While there is general economic proof of incentive issues in welfare systems, I think the restrictive designs in these programs serve as effective mitigation. In other words, it is difficult to see that people would opt not to work for these limited aids.

When participants in these programs were surveyed, most of them expressed an willingness to work. There are some international comparisons of such programs that also support this argument. I do admit, however, that I have not done enough research to be certain.

If work incentives do not turn out to be a problem in these programs, I think they could instead put more resources in helping participants find work. For example, they could implement job training programs.

In the past 40 years, top corporate executives in the U.S. have seen a compensation rise of 1000%. This number is shocking compared to the 11.9% pay rise among average workers during the same period. [1] This unusual trend has sparked debates about the legitimacy of such compensation. Some politicians have called for new tax policies to rein in the widening pay gap. Studies have proven their concerns. The current CEO compensation in the U.S. stems from illegitimate reasons, distorts the labor market, and exacerbates inequality. Thus, CEOs in the United States receive too much compensation.

CEOs do not deserve such inflated compensation. Many scholars have debated the cause of this fast paycheck rise. Some have justified the phenomenon as market outcomes. Technological changes, they argue, have enabled CEOs to increase their marginal productivity. [2] However, some point to these CEOs’ less-paid international peers as proof of non-market factors. Instead, the pay rise likely stems from managerial rent-seeking. CEOs have used their power to pursue higher compensation. [3] Therefore, CEOs do not contribute enough productivity to deserve their elevated compensation.

The elevated CEO compensation distorts the entire labor market. The rent-seeking behaviors produce repercussions beyond the corporate executive corner in the labor market. The elevated CEO compensation also forces corporates to increase the pay of other high positions. To compete with these corporations for talents, many other organizations also have to increase their compensation for top executives. These organizations could include universities, private charities, and foundations. Furthermore, the tempting compensation encourages the “revolving door’ problem. Officials in government regulatory agencies may take jobs in industries in their jurisdiction. This phenomenon can exasperate insider trading and diminish government integrity.[4] Thus, the abnormal CEO compensation has negatively impacted the entire labor market.

The high CEO compensation increases inequality. In 1965, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1. By 2018, it had risen to 278-to-1. This shocking change has widened the socio-economic gap between top earners and average workers. Furthermore, the widening happens on both fronts. The extra rents to CEOs and other top positions represent a transfer of financial resources. In other words, the money could have gone to the wages of average workers. [5] Thus, the rise of CEO compensation hurts workers and exasperates economic inequality, both explicitly and implicitly.

For these reasons, CEOs in the United States receive too much compensation.

[1]. Cox, Jeff. 2019. "Ceos See Pay Grow 1,000% In The Last 40 Years, Now Make 278 Times The Average Worker". CNBC News. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/16/ceos-see-pay-grow-1000percent-and-now-make-278-times-the-average-worker.html.

[2]. Kaplan, Steven N, and Joshua Rauh. 2013. "It's The Market: The Broad-Based Rise In The Return To Top Talent". Journal Of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 35-56. doi:10.1257/jep.27.3.35.

[3]. Bivens, Josh, and Lawrence Mishel. 2013. "The Pay Of Corporate Executives And Financial Professionals As Evidence Of Rents In Top 1 Percent Incomes". Journal Of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 57-78. doi:10.1257/jep.27.3.57.

[4]. Baker, Dean, Josh Bivens, and Jessica Schieder. 2019. "Reining In CEO Compensation And Curbing The Rise Of Inequality". Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/reining-in-ceo-compensation-and-curbing-the-rise-of-inequality.

[5]. Mishel, Lawrence, and Julia Wolfe. 2019. "CEO Compensation Has Grown 940% Since 1978". Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/.

I think that is a global trend everywhere, though especially severe in the U.S. and the UK.

With the stock market argument, I think I did not articulate it as well as I could have. By "tying compensation to stock growth" I was not referring to the compensation in stock option. Rather, I was trying to make an argument about a correlation between the stock market and CEO compensation. A study has found that "pay surged with the overall rise in profits and stocks, not with the better performance of a CEO’s particular firm relative to that firm’s competitors." This would imply that CEOs were not rewarded for their competitive edge . Thank you for pointing that out. I definitely did not deliver that argument well.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant fiscal constraints on states and localities. As economic activities slow down, sales tax and business tax are generating fewer revenues. The state-at-home orders have also restricted other revenue sources. Congress has disagreed on the need to include direct and immediate financial assistance to these regional governments. However, detailed analysis has pointed to states and local aids as an effective stimulus measure. [1] These aids can balance the budget, protect employment, and make the stimulus more efficient. For these reasons, the U.S. federal government should include state and local aids in the Covid-19 stimulus plan.

Regional governments urgently need financial assistance to ensure fiscal balance. Unlike the federal government, these authorities cannot legally borrow money and run deficits. However, the pandemic has led to decreased revenues and increased expenditure needs. State revenues decreased by at least 7.8% in 2020. Consequently, states, localities, and tribal nations are expecting shortfalls of $300 billion through 2022. On the other hand, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to various needs for additional funding. Regional governments face increased unemployment insurance applications and a series of public health expenditures. This growing fiscal gap could force regional governments to adopt different austerity measures during a severe economic crisis. [1] Thus, states and localities need federal assistance to balance their budget.

State and local aids are crucial for employment. Faced with the fiscal crisis, authorities at various levels have begun cutting public sector workers. The current job loss due to the economic crisis has already surpassed that during the Great Recession. The impact of the public sector job cut will likely prove long-lasting. Studies of the Great Recession shows that states with more public sector job cuts recovered more slowly than those with less. Furthermore, the loss of public sector jobs will spill over into the private sector. In the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, job loss in private and public sectors proved correlated. Furthermore, states with more public sector job loss faced significantly higher unemployment in the years after the crisis. [3] Thus, state and local aids will play a decisive role in helping the labor market during the crisis.

State and local aids represent an ideal means of resource allocation. Some critics have viewed state and local aids as a federal bail-out. That view, however, ignores the advantages of states and localities in orchestrating the recovery. These regional governments can better tailor the resource allocations to the specific needs in their jurisdictions. This hands-off approach can also promote fairness. Some regions will likely face a more significant crisis due to factors, such as a fragile economy or an older population. By funding the specific authorities in these most affected areas, the federal government can target those most in need. [4] Taken together, state and local aids entrust federal resources to the more qualified regional authorities. This approach can improve the efficiency and fairness of the Covid-19 stimulus. Thus, state and local aids could magnify the effects of the Covid-19 stimulus plan.

For these reasons, the U.S. federal government should include state and local aid in the Covid-19 stimulus.

[1]. Elis, Niv. 2020. "Economists Warn Against Excluding State Aid From COVID-19 Relief". The Hill, , 2020. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/529557-economists-warn-against-excluding-state-aid-from-covid-19-relief?rl=1.

[2]. Leachman, Michael. 2021. "States, Localities, Tribal Nations, Territories Need More Federal Aid". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/1-22-21sfp.pdf.

[3]. Cooper, David. 2020. "Without Federal Aid, Many State And Local Governments Could Make The Same Budget Cuts That Hampered The Last Economic Recovery". Blog. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/blog/without-federal-aid-many-state-and-local-governments-could-make-the-same-budget-cuts-that-hampered-the-last-economic-recovery/.

[4]. Gordon, Tracy. 2020. "Why Federal Investments Matter: Stability From Congress To State Capitals". Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/158294/strengthening_the_federal-state-local_partnership_in_recession_and_recovery_1.pdf.

The U.S. minimum wage currently stands at $7.25, as it has done since 2009. Due to this lack of updates, workers today get paid less in real dollars than their counterparts from 50 years ago. [1] Perhaps, as a result, there is bipartisan support from the American public to raise the minimum wage. [2] Various evidence backs such as sentiment. A higher minimum wage would reduce poverty, help vulnerable groups, and improve the economy. Therefore, the United States should raise the Federal minimum wage.

The struggling households in the U.S. need a higher minimum wage. Right now, a single adult American needs at least $31,200 every year for an adequate standard of living. That baseline applies to all of America, not just the wealthy coastal areas. The individual would have to earn at least $15 an hour to reach that threshold, twice the current baseline. Therefore, a hypothetical gradual increase of minimum wage to $15 could have a significant impact. Around 21% of the U.S workforce, a total of 32 million, would benefit from the policy. The percentage increases to 59% workers with family income below the poverty line. The extra wage would greatly benefit workers such as cashiers or healthcare aides, who currently do not earn sustainable wages. [1] The benefit could also reduce people’s dependency on welfare programs and improve their self-sufficiency. [3] Thus, a higher minimum wage in the U.S. would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on struggling families.

While an increased minimum wage generates general benefits, it would particularly help vulnerable groups. Women would constitute more than half of the potential beneficiaries of the change. Approximately 32% of African Americans and 26% of Latino Americans would see higher wages. With the intersection of the two identities, women of color will also receive significant help. [1] These groups have historically received unfairly low wages due to various discriminations. As a result, a higher minimum wage would particularly help their economic standings in American society. From this perspective, there is an equity and social justice argument behind a higher minimum wage. Thus, a higher minimum wage could help those most in need in the status quo.

A higher minimum wage will leave the national economy in no worse, if not better, shape. A common argument against a higher minimum wage is its negative effect on employment. That assertion breaks down under scrutiny. Research has discovered no meaningful impact of minimum wage hikes on employment rates. [4] On the contrary, the policy has produced several positive economic effects. A higher minimum wage could increase worker morale and decrease expensive workplace turnovers. [5] Workers with a higher income would also lead to an increase in consumption. This consumption boost becomes more important during the current pandemic recession. 6] Thus, a higher minimum wage would strengthen rather than weaken the national economy in the U.S.

For these reasons, the United States should raise the Federal minimum wage.

[1]. Economic Policy Institute. 2021. "Why The U.S. Needs A $15 Minimum Wage". Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/.

[2]. Kinder, Molly. 2020. "Even A Divided America Agrees On Raising The Minimum Wage". The Avenue. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/13/even-a-divided-america-agrees-on-raising-the-minimum-wage/.

[3]. Jacobs, Ken, Ian Eve Perry, and Jenifer MacGillvary. 2021. "The Public Cost Of A Low Federal Minimum Wage". UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Public-Cost-of-a-Low-Federal-Minimum-Wage.pdf.

[4]. Wolfson, Paul, and Dale Belman. 2019. "15 Years Of Research On US Employment And The Minimum Wage". LABOUR 33 (4): 488-506. doi:10.1111/labr.12162.

[5]. Dube, Arindrajit, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich. 2016. "Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows, And Labor Market Frictions". Journal Of Labor Economics 34 (3): 663-704. doi:10.1086/685449.

[6]. Alonso, Cristian. 2020. "Beyond Labor Market Outcomes". Journal Of Human Resources, 0518-9524R2. doi:10.3368/jhr.58.1.0518-9524r2.

The U.S. minimum wage currently stands at $7.25, as it has done since 2009. Due to this lack of updates, workers today get paid less in real dollars than their counterparts from 50 years ago. [1] Perhaps, as a result, there is bipartisan support from the American public to raise the minimum wage. [2] Various evidence backs such as sentiment. A higher minimum wage would reduce poverty, help vulnerable groups, and improve the economy. Therefore, the United States should raise the Federal minimum wage.

The struggling households in the U.S. need a higher minimum wage. Right now, a single adult American needs at least $31,200 every year for an adequate standard of living. That baseline applies to all of America, not just the wealthy coastal areas. The individual would have to earn at least $15 an hour to reach that threshold, twice the current baseline. Therefore, a hypothetical gradual increase of minimum wage to $15 could have a significant impact. Around 21% of the U.S workforce, a total of 32 million, would benefit from the policy. The percentage increases to 59% workers with family income below the poverty line. The extra wage would greatly benefit workers such as cashiers or healthcare aides, who currently do not earn sustainable wages. [1] The benefit could also reduce people’s dependency on welfare programs and improve their self-sufficiency. [3] Thus, a higher minimum wage in the U.S. would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on struggling families.

While an increased minimum wage generates general benefits, it would particularly help vulnerable groups. Women would constitute more than half of the potential beneficiaries of the change. Approximately 32% of African Americans and 26% of Latino Americans would see higher wages. With the intersection of the two identities, women of color will also receive significant help. [1] These groups have historically received unfairly low wages due to various discriminations. As a result, a higher minimum wage would particularly help their economic standings in American society. From this perspective, there is an equity and social justice argument behind a higher minimum wage. Thus, a higher minimum wage could help those most in need in the status quo.

A higher minimum wage will leave the national economy in no worse, if not better, shape. A common argument against a higher minimum wage is its negative effect on employment. That assertion breaks down under scrutiny. Research has discovered no meaningful impact of minimum wage hikes on employment rates. [4] On the contrary, the policy has produced several positive economic effects. A higher minimum wage could increase worker morale and decrease expensive workplace turnovers. [5] Workers with a higher income would also lead to an increase in consumption. This consumption boost becomes more important during the current pandemic recession. 6] Thus, a higher minimum wage would strengthen rather than weaken the national economy in the U.S.

For these reasons, the United States should raise the Federal minimum wage.

[1]. Economic Policy Institute. 2021. "Why The U.S. Needs A $15 Minimum Wage". Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/why-america-needs-a-15-minimum-wage/.

[2]. Kinder, Molly. 2020. "Even A Divided America Agrees On Raising The Minimum Wage". The Avenue. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/13/even-a-divided-america-agrees-on-raising-the-minimum-wage/.

[3]. Jacobs, Ken, Ian Eve Perry, and Jenifer MacGillvary. 2021. "The Public Cost Of A Low Federal Minimum Wage". UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Public-Cost-of-a-Low-Federal-Minimum-Wage.pdf.

[4]. Wolfson, Paul, and Dale Belman. 2019. "15 Years Of Research On US Employment And The Minimum Wage". LABOUR 33 (4): 488-506. doi:10.1111/labr.12162.

[5]. Dube, Arindrajit, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich. 2016. "Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows, And Labor Market Frictions". Journal Of Labor Economics 34 (3): 663-704. doi:10.1086/685449.

[6]. Alonso, Cristian. 2020. "Beyond Labor Market Outcomes". Journal Of Human Resources, 0518-9524R2. doi:10.3368/jhr.58.1.0518-9524r2.

Donald J. Trump represented one of the worst presidents in modern U.S. history. While substantial debates can exist about the merits of the policies from his administration, such cannot extend to his presidency. Unlike other presidents, Donald Trump did not establish his legacy based on his policies, but his governing. Pundits can disagree on the merits of the 2017 tax cuts, the withdrawal of troops, and the new foreign policy focus on China. However, facts have portrayed a president who shuns professionalism, eschews transparency, and disdains checks for power. These approaches influence almost every decision he made in his presidency, and they will leave more impacts than any specific legislation. Together, they define the dark legacy of a failed president. Thus, the Trump presidency is inexcusably disastrous.

Trump avoided and actively discouraged professionalism in politics. This tendency manifests best in his treatment of civil servants and his cabinet members. Under Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the State Department effectively shut out career diplomats and foreign policy experts out of the decision circle. Instead, Tillerson chose to hire politicized outside advisers to make foreign policy decisions. [1] This trend worsened even further under Secretary Mike Pompeo, who sought to use the department for Trump’s reelection effort. [2] In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump installed Gen. Christopher Miller and Kash Patel at the Department of Defense. The two significantly hindered the orderly transition of power at the Pentagon, despite concerns from military commanders. [3] Such politicization exists in almost all aspects of his government. In the long run, this misuse of power sets dangerous precedents for problematic decision-making in the federal government. In the short run, his loyalists in the government can cause significant dysfunction for the Biden Administration. [4]

Trump showed disdain for transparency. No matter the merits of the policies, there is no question that a president’s decisions should be visible to relevant stakeholders. Such visibility became non-existent to the general public and the government oversight agencies during the Trump Administration. He actively spread misinformation on various important subjects, such as the spread of Covid-19, the substance of his healthcare plan, and the 2020 election. [5] He prevented oversight for the functioning and decisions of his agencies. [6] This lack of transparency has no place in a democracy, even if the government is making sound and reasonable decisions.

Trump practiced a shocking level of executive aggrandizement during his presidency. He used the power of his office for his personal campaign, and consistently breached the Hatch Act. These exercises, however, pale in comparison to his action to dispute the 2020 election. He threatened the Georgia Secretary of State to manipulate the election outcome. [7] He partially incited a historic insurrection against another branch of the government. [8] No reputable sources have discovered substantial proof of election fraud. However, these clarifications miss the point. Even if election fraud existed, such illegal abuse of power would still represent significant and unforgivable damage to the U.S. democracy. While Trump has left office, he created great mistrust of the electoral system among the GOP base. [9] This destruction of democracy will take years, if not decades, to repair.

The three aspects mentioned above overlap and complement each other. Together they portray a reckless and destructive president. Many policies under the Trump Administration should receive objective debates. Some of them may prove beneficial and reasonable. However, they do not salvage a horrifying presidency of historic proportions. The Trump presidency is not defined by its philosophy, policies, or political stances. It is defined by the utter betrayal of his office and the republic. For these reasons, Donald Trump is the worst president in modern U.S. history.

“...There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution… I will vote to impeach the President.” - Statement of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo), Chair of the House Republican Conference, on January 12, 2021. [10]

[1]. Gramer, Robbie, Dan De Luce, and Colum Lynch. 2017. "How The Trump Administration Broke The State Department". Foreign Policy, , 2017. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/31/how-the-trump-administration-broke-the-state-department/.

[2]. McKinley, P. Michael. 2020. "The Politicization Of The State Department Is Almost Complete". Government Executive, , 2020. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/10/politicization-state-department-almost-complete/169525/.

[3]. Seligman, Lara, and Bryan Bender. 2021. "‘Really Quite Shocking’: Inside The Ugly Transition At The Pentagon". Politico, , 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/20/biden-pentagon-transition-460768.

[4]. Miranda Ollstein, Alice, and Megan Cassella. 2021. "The ‘Deep State’ Of Loyalists Trump Is Leaving Behind For Biden". Politico, , 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-loyalists-burrowing-biden-460238.

[5]. Cathey, Libby. 2021. "Legacy Of Lies -- How Trump Weaponized Mistruths During His Presidency". ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legacy-lies-trump-weaponized-mistruths-presidency/story?id=75335019.

[6]. Hamburger, Tom, Jeff Stein, Jonathan O'Connell, and Aaron Gregg. 2020. "Inspectors General Warn That Trump Administration Is Blocking Scrutiny Of Coronavirus Rescue Programs". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/15/inspector-general-oversight-mnuchin-cares-act/.

[7]. Gardner, Amy, and Paulina Firozi. 2020. "Here’S The Full Transcript And Audio Of The Call Between Trump And Raffensperger". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html.

[8]. Alberta, Tim. 2021. "Jan. 6 Was 9 Weeks — And 4 Years — In The Making". Politico, , 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/07/jan-6-was-9-weeks-and-4-years-in-the-making-455797.

[9]. Coleman, Justine. 2020. "Poll: Less Than One-Quarter Of Republicans Trust Election Results". The Hill, , 2020. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/529476-fewer-than-one-quarter-of-republicans-trust-election-results-poll.

[10]. Wyoming Congresswoman and House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY). 2021. "Cheney: I Will Vote To Impeach The President". https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-f8dc-d367-a17e-fefc40700000.

A healthy democracy should give voting rights to as many people as possible. However, currently, 75 million U.S. citizens cannot make their voices heard. They cannot do so because of the arbitrary voting age of 18. It is time that the U.S. government lowers that bar to 16. It should do so because 16-year-olds are not more likely to make irresponsible decisions than other age groups. It should do so because they represent a missing voice in our political discourse. It should do so because it fits the historical tide of strengthening democracy through enfranchisement.

There is no reason to doubt 16-year-olds’ ability to make voting decisions. Critics often cite this group’s lack of individuality and maturity as evidence against lowering the voting age. This argument fails for multiple reasons. First, extensive knowledge should not serve as a prerequisite for voting rights. The current American electorate as a whole has become significantly ill-informed about politics. [1] Hence, if adults are just as ignorant about politics as 16-year-olds are, why allow one group to vote but not another? Furthermore, the requirement of sound judgment can become an excuse for disenfranchisement. White Americans said the same about minorities. Men said the same about women. To tie good judgment to voting rights can become dangerous. Second, evidence has shown no irregularities about 16-year-olds’ political opinions. Public polling has shown that young people lean more liberal in their political thinking. This tendency seems unsurprising since it fits the overall correlation between young age and progressive stances. [2] Considering the consistency of this trend, it seems unlikely that outside factors disproportionately influence young people. Evidence in other countries further supports young people’s participation in voting. Austria’s decision to lower the voting age to 16 produced no observable adverse effects. On the contrary, young people may have become more likely to vote for their entire life due to that change. [3] Therefore, the age of 18 should not serve as a golden standard for voter eligibility.

Adding 16-year-olds to the voting block brings an unrepresented voice to political discourses. Seniors have long served as the most reliable voting block in the U.S. As a result, politicians have become more responsive to their needs. This tendency is likely causing significant underrepresentation of young people. As the most diverse age group in American history, young people’s views on politics differ drastically from previous generations. They are much more open to gender, race, and sexuality issues. They believe more in an expanding role of the government. They favor more action on climate change. [2] Since they are not likely to be represented at the polls by proxy, young people suffer substantial and sometimes irreparable harms due to the current voting age. Thus, the consequential and damaging effects of disenfranchisement demand a lower voting age.

The fight for a 16 voting age fits the historical trend. The United States has never stopped the discussion of voting rights. While lowering the voting age to 16 seems rather drastic, several precedents exist for such efforts. In the 1970s, 18-year-olds said: “if we are old enough to fight, we are old enough to vote.” Today, 16-year-olds are saying: “if we are old enough to pay taxes and work full-time, we are old enough to vote.” [4] Significant differences exist between the two circumstances. However, the historical context shows the need for a calm and merit-based discussion of the idea. In other words, calling an idea drastic should not qualify as a legitimate counter-argument with voting rights.

While this discussion focuses on the U.S, the same analysis can extend to other democracies. If significant merits exist for lowering the voting age to 16, there is no political, moral, or historical excuse to avoid doing so.

For these reasons, the U.S. should lower the voting age to 16.

[1]. Lehigh, Scot. 2017. "America’s Ill-Informed Electorate". The Boston Globe, , 2017. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2017/01/03/voters-fault-doesn-lie-just-with-press/bOTozFqqAjlMl52oNp7n6L/story.html.

[2]. Parker, Kim, Nikki Graf, and Ruth Igielnik. 2019. "Generation Z Looks A Lot Like Millennials On Key Social And Political Issues". Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/.

[3]. Wagner, Markus, David Johann, and Sylvia Kritzinger. 2012. "Voting At 16: Turnout And The Quality Of Vote Choice". Electoral Studies 31 (2): 372-383. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.01.007.

[4]. Astor, Maggie. 2019. "16-Year-Olds Want A Vote. Fifty Years Ago, So Did 18-Year-Olds.". The New York Times, , 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/us/politics/voting-age.html.

I have concerns about requiring "maturity" or "knowledge" for voting. This argument can easily become ableist. Should we also ban people over 80 from voting, since they are likely to experience cognitive decline? Should we allow only educated people to vote, since they are much more likely to be better informed? Any such restrictions will pose significant harm to vulnerable groups. One can always argue "not all old people experience cognitive decline", but I think the same can be said of 16-year-olds and their maturity.

Moreover, voting should be an end to itself rather than a means. I too believe voting is an important means of enacting change, but I think it is first and foremost a political right. It ensures consent of the governed. Thus, one cannot judge voting rights based on the potential outcomes of their votes. In other words, "would this group enact responsible and real changes" is completely irrelevant to their voting rights. It would be a plus if they do, and it would be a plus if the voters are all informed and mature. However, the absence of these good qualities does not take away voting rights. In the same way, a person retains right to life, even if they do not contribute anything and live on government welfare. A person retains right to speech, even if they use it exclusively to insult people (barring some public safety exceptions). Fundamental rights, by definition, require no qualification. Thus, a person does not have to vote rationally to be allowed to vote. Young people should not become an exception here.

During his campaign, President Joe Biden committed to achieving 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035. [1] To do so, he will have to use a significant number of policy tools. To that end, carbon tax represents one of the most discussed proposals for emission control. While the policy can take many forms with different tax rates, it essentially places a tax on carbon-related products to disincentivize emissions. Despite criticism, a carbon tax stands out due to its fiscal, economic, and environmental advantages. Thus, the U.S. Government should adopt a national carbon tax.

A carbon tax can serve as a federal revenue source. As the national debt is fast ballooning, a carbon tax can reduce the fiscal deficit. A modest proposal of a carbon tax would generate $88 billion in its first year. The figure would reach $1.1 trillion in a decade and 42.7 in two decades. If coupled with a reduction in other energy subsidies, a carbon tax would reduce the federal deficit by $200 billion in its first ten years. [2] On the other hand, if the government is more concerned about tax burdens than deficit reduction, it can easily offset the burden of the carbon tax through reductions in other taxes. A proportional cut in labor or capital tax can render the carbon tax revenue-neutral, and thus reduces pressure on the private sector. [3] Regardless of the scenarios, carbon tax represents a fiscally responsible and advantageous policy.

A carbon tax does not hurt the macro or the micro-economy. Some have objected to the idea of a carbon tax due to its perceived damage to economic growth, the job market, and family finances. This argument fails to hold ground under analysis. A study of a potential carbon tax in 31 European countries finds no significant impact on long-term GDP growth or employment rates. [3] While the tax could potentially mean an additional expense for individual families, these expenses are modest and can be easily managed. According to one estimate, a modest carbon tax would increase retail energy prices by only 5 to 6% and gasoline prices by 19%. If the government reserves about 15% of the tax revenue for impact mitigation, it can offset these burdens for households with income below 150% of the poverty line. [2] Thus, a carbon tax would not cause meaningful damage to the economy.

A carbon tax can effectively discourage CO2 emissions. A reasonable carbon tax can cut CO2 emissions by 12% in two decades, meaning 9.2 billion metric tons of CO2. The climate benefits associated with the reduction in such a time frame would equate to approximately $148 billion. [2] Compared with other emission control policies, a carbon tax has the best cost-benefit ratio. [3] Therefore, a carbon tax can serve as an efficient tool to combat climate change.

For these reasons, the U.S. Government should adopt a national carbon tax.

[1]. Muyskens, John, and Juliet Eilperin. 2020. "Biden Calls For 100 Percent Clean Electricity By 2035. Here’S How Far We Have To Go.". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/30/biden-calls-100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-heres-how-far-we-have-go/?arc404=true.

[2]. Morris, Adele. 2013. "Proposal 11: The Many Benefits Of A Carbon Tax". The Hamilton Project. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop11.pdf.

[3]. Williams, Robert. 2013. "Taxing Carbon: Potential Deficit And Emissions Reductions". Resources for the Future. https://www.resourcesmag.org/archives/taxing-carbon-potential-deficit-and-emissions-reductions/.

[4]. Metcalf, Gilbert, and James Stock. 2020. "Carbon Taxes Do Not Harm Jobs Or Economic Growth". Resources for the Future. https://www.resourcesmag.org/archives/carbon-taxes-do-not-harm-jobs-or-economic-growth/.

The U.S. infrastructure system currently enjoys a grade of D+ by the American Association of Civil Engineers. The country’s public transportation system requires urgent repairs and more funding. The issue disproportionately affects certain vulnerable groups and hinders their economic mobility. As a whole, the U.S public transportation system perpetuates inequality.

The current public transit system reduces job accessibilities. The lack of adequate public transit reduces people’s mobilities. As a result, people relying on public transit for work have to find jobs in their immediate vicinity. This phenomenon causes a spatial mismatch between employers and employees. Neither job seekers nor potential employers can access each other if they do not live close. Therefore, some locations have an excess of unemployed people, while others with unfilled vacancies. [1] The issue becomes particularly acute among low-income groups. Research into four cities in the U.S. identified significant spatial mismatches in low-income neighborhoods. Compared with high-come areas, residents in these neighborhoods have less access to job opportunities as well as other public facilities. [2] Thus, the current public transit system hinders employment opportunities for many.

Inadequate public transit disproportionately affects people of color. People of color, particularly African Americans rely more on public transit than white Americans, since they are more likely to lack a private vehicle. However, White Americans continue to make up a larger share of workers commuting with public transit. [3] People of color are more likely to live in concentrated and underserved areas due to the legacy of racial segregation. Thus, they often lack access to well developed public transit in the localities. [2] They often have to face long commutes. The time wasted on these commutes could have gone to education, family, and other activities. In this sense, the lack of public transit serves as a significant roadblock for racial equality.

The current public transit system hurts people with disabilities. People with disabilities depend on public transit more than fully abled ones. Unfortunately, they are more than twice as likely to face difficulties using public transit. Right now, a total of 560,000 people with disabilities in the U.S. never leave their homes due to the lack of adequate transportation. In rural areas, the lack of adequate funding often leads to virtually no means of moving around for people with disabilities. In urban hubs, the progress to accommodate people with disabilities on public transit has yielded uneven results due to the lack of common standards. [4] This issue has made it more difficult for people with disabilities to obtain employment and social inclusion. [5] Thus, the current public transit system represents a disservice for people with disabilities.

For these reasons, the U.S. public transportation system perpetuates inequality.

[1]. Andersson, Fredrik, John C. Haltiwanger, Mark J. Kutzbach, Henry O. Pollakowski, and Daniel H. Weinberg. 2018. "Job Displacement And The Duration Of Joblessness: The Role Of Spatial Mismatch". The Review Of Economics And Statistics 100 (2): 203-218. doi:10.1162/rest_a_00707.

[2]. Stacy, Christina, Yipeng Su, Eleanor Noble, Alena Stern, Kristin Blagg, Macy Rainer, and Richard Ezike. 2020. "Access To Opportunity Through Equitable Transportation". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102992/access-to-opportunity-through-equitable-transportation_0.pdf.

[3]. Austin, Algernon. 2017. "To Move Is To Thrive: Public Transit And Economic Opportunity For People Of Color". Demos. https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Public%20Transit.pdf.

[4]. American Association of People with Disabilities. 2021. "Equity In Transportation For People With Disabilities". PolicyLink. Accessed January 22. http://www.civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/transportation/final-transportation-equity-disability.pdf.

[5]. Bezyak, Jill L., Scott A. Sabella, and Robert H. Gattis. 2017. "Public Transportation: An Investigation Of Barriers For People With Disabilities". Journal Of Disability Policy Studies 28 (1): 52-60. doi:10.1177/1044207317702070.

Paid family leave helps workers address many personal needs, most notably caring for a new-born child, without suffering financially. The U.S. stands as the only advanced country without a national paid family leave policy. [1] The vacuum gives the option of paid leave to the discretion of individual employers. As a result, only about 14% of U.S. workers have access to this employee benefit. [2] Government-mandated paid family leave would help the new-born children, the individual workers, and the U.S. economy as a whole. Thus, the United States should guarantee paid family leave for new parents.

Paid family leave helps with the health and development of new-born children. The policy has been shown to reduce risks for infants before and after birth. Paid family leave can lead to increased birth weight and less premature birth. Since parents have more time to care for the children, they are more likely to take the infants for frequent medical checkups. Perhaps, as a result, paid family leaves have also been associated with reduced infant mortality. Moreover, studies have shown that the early years play a significant role in the intellectual development of children. Increased parental presence guarantees better education at an early stage of childhood, and thus better development outcomes. [3] Thus, paid sick leave serves the best interests of new-born children.

Paid family leave ensures the financial stability of new parents. Currently, many new parents have to choose between their job security and care for their children. This dilemma imposes financial hardship for families when they face additional expenses due to birth. As a result, families often face a 10% decline in income after birth, and single mothers face up to 42%. Furthermore, these effects become especially pronounced for people with less education and lower wages. On the other hand, Studies associated state-based paid family leave policies with reduced poverty and a better employment rate for new mothers. Therefore, such a federal policy could ensure the economic stability of many new families. [2]

The economic benefit of paid family leave also extends to macroeconomic levels. Without paid family leaves, women are less likely to participate in the labor force. The absence of such a policy leads to a disappointing job retention rate for new mothers. The reduced labor force participation and long-term job retention have an undoubtedly negative effect on the national economic growth of the United States. [4] Thus, a national policy of paid sick leave could boost macroeconomic growth.

For these reasons, the United States should guarantee paid family leave for new parents.

[1]. Sawhill, Isabel, and Sarah Nzau. 2019. "What Are The Challenges To Adopting A Federal Paid Family Leave Program?". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-are-the-challenges-to-adopting-a-federal-paid-family-leave-program/.

[2]. Isaacs, Julia, Olivia Healy, and H. Elizabeth Peters. 2017. "Paid Family Leave In The United States". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90201/paid_family_leave_0.pdf.

[3]. bangs, Molly. 2016. "The Facts Behind Why Americans Need Nationwide Paid Family Leave". The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/facts/facts-behind-americans-need-nationwide-paid-family-leave/.

[4]. Sawhill, Isabel, Richard Reeves, and Sarah Nzau. 2019. "Paid Leave As Fuel For Economic Growth". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/27/paid-leave-as-fuel-for-economic-growth/.

The U.S. Congress has enhanced and extended the employment insurance (UI) in response to the Covid-19 economic downturn. [1] The UI system, however, has performed poorly as a safety net long before the 2020 pandemic. Troubled by decreased revenues, blowing debt, and inadequate effect, the U.S. unemployment insurance system requires a significant overhaul.

The current UI system does not have sufficient sources of revenue. The UI receives funds through taxes on wages. The taxable wage base for the UI has not changed since 1982. It has also not adjusted to annual inflation. As a result, the percentage of wages taxable for the UI has declined ever since. Currently, less than 30% of all national wages serve as tax bases for the UI. [2] This decline of taxes, however, has not affected everyone equally. The UI tax is not only insufficient but significantly regressive. The UI tax rate stands at over 2.5% for the bottom quarter of the wage distribution, but less than 1% for the top quarter. [3] Therefore, the insufficient UI tax disproportionately burdens the most vulnerable in the labor force.

As a result, the current UI system is indebted and unstable. While the destabilization and depletion of the UI system started in the 1980s, the damage significantly worsened after the 2008 recession, when the UI systems in many states went into deep insolvency. By 2011, the national UI systems had a combined debt of $41.6 billion. That number represented about 94% of the UI tax revenues. [4] By 2016, the UI depends on a combination of loans from the U.S. Treasury Department and the private bond market. By then, the entire fund pool had recovered to about 59% of the pre-2008 level (which was not ideal, to begin with). [2] As a result, the UI system remains fragile and unlikely to respond well to any economic shocks (let alone one to the magnitude of 2020). Thus, the UI system has been and will continue to represent an unstable system.

The weakness of the system has visible impacts on the people in need. Before the 2020 economic downturn, the percentage of UI recipients among unemployed people showed a significant decline. By 2016, the recipiency rate remained at 75% of the pre-2008 level. While many factors contributed to the decline, two causes stand out. First, the average duration of unemployment has steadily increased. With more people out of work for longer periods, many lost the time-limited unemployment insurance. Second, the very time limits for the UI have also become shorter in some states, perhaps as a result of the insufficient funding. [5]. Put the two pieces together, the UI system has become increasingly unhelpful to the unemployed workers in the United States.

The UI system represented an obsolete insufficient, yet consequential safety net. The problem has worsened since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic but predates that crisis. Considering its draining revenues, unstable functioning, and restricted recipiency, the U.S. unemployment insurance system needs major reform.

[1]. Iacurci, Greg. 2020. "Covid Relief Bill Offers 11 Weeks Of Extra Unemployment Benefits, $300 Boost And A Supplement For Some Gig Workers". Cnbc.Com. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/21/covid-relief-bill-extends-and-enhances-unemployment-benefits.html.

[2]. Stettner, Andrew. 2016. "Speeding The Recovery Of Unemployment Insurance". The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/speeding-the-recovery-of-unemployment-insurance/.

[3]. Kling, Jeffrey. 2007. "Testimony Before The Subcommittee On Income Security And Family Support Of The House Committee On Ways And Means". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/kling20070919-1.pdf.

[4]. Vroman, Wayne. 2012. "The Challenge Facing The UI Financing System". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25701/412629-The-Challenge-Facing-the-Unemployment-Insurance-Financial-System.PDF.

[5]. Vroman, Wayne. 2018. "Unemployment Insurance: Benefits Performance Since The Great Recession". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96806/unemployment_insurance_benefits_performance_since_the_great_recession_2.pdf.

Cities in the U.S. use zoning codes to regulate land use. They can mandate the type of constructions allowed on a piece of land through these regulations. Often, that leads to neighborhoods exclusive to single-family homes. [1] While city planning necessitates some land regulation (no one should build residential homes next to a chemical plant, etc), strict zoning codes in many U.S. cities today are harmful. These regulations have detrimental effects on housing affordability, racial justice, and economic prosperity.

Strict zoning codes decrease housing affordability. The prevalence of single-family zones mandates low density in some of the most popular cities in the United States. This under-utilization of land leads to fewer new houses constructed and thus depressed supply of housing. Consequently, zoning codes and other land regulations correlate strongly with elevated housing prices. They likely bear responsibility for these high prices. [2] Moreover, strict zoning codes often encourage owners of high-end houses to expand or renovate their properties. These practices can further elevate the values of the housing market without increasing the supply of it. [3] Therefore, strict zoning codes depress housing affordability in multiple ways and make expensive cities more expensive.

Strict zoning codes have a particularly deterrent effect on African Americans. Ever since the 20th century, cities have used zoning codes to explicitly or implicitly enforce racial segregation. The protection of single-family zones often shuts African Americans out of comfortable living conditions and sufficient resources. As a result, African Americans of all income levels are more likely to live next to pollution sources and develop health conditions. [4] The segregation of neighborhoods also perpetuates the segregation of schools. As a result, racially segregated schools tend to deliver fewer resources to black children and other children of other minority groups. [5] Thus, strict zoning codes have long hindered the process of racial equity.

Strict zoning codes also hurt the macro-economy. Due to the low densities, cities often fail to realize their full economic potential. Some of the most expensive cities, such as New York or San Francisco, are also the most productive places with significant economic activities. However, the lack of affordable housing has discouraged many potential skilled residents. When not all productive laborers can fit in productive places for an artificial reason, the labor market has an inefficient equilibrium. This mismatch has prevented potential economic growth. According to one estimate, the strict zoning codes in three cities (New York, San Jose, and San Francisco) have restricted about a 10% growth of the U.S. economy. [6]

Strict zoning codes protect single-family houses at the expense of housing availability, racial justice, and national economic growth. For these reasons, it is a harmful policy.

[1]. Badger, Emily. 2018. "The Bipartisan Cry Of ‘Not In My Backyard’", , 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/upshot/home-ownership-nimby-bipartisan.html.

[2]. Glaeser, Edward L., and Joseph E. Gyourko. 2002. "The Impact Of Zoning On Housing Affordability". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.302388.

[3]. Schuetz, Jenny. 2019. "Restrictive Zoning Is Impeding DC’S Goal To Build More Housing". The Avenue. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/10/08/restrictive-zoning-is-impeding-dcs-goal-to-build-more-housing/.

[4]. Brennan, Maya, Emily Peiffer, and Kimberly Burrowes. 2019. "How Zoning Shapes Our Lives". Housing Matters. https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/how-zoning-shapes-our-lives.

[5]. Rothwell, Jonathan. 2012. "Housing Costs, Zoning, And Access To High-Scoring Schools". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0419_school_inequality_rothwell.pdf.

[6]. Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Enrico Moretti. 2019. "Housing Constraints And Spatial Misallocation". American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 11 (2): 1-39. doi:10.1257/mac.20170388.

That is interesting. I actually don't know much about housing policies in the UK. My general opinion on land regulation is relatively libertarian (excluding some necessary health related regulations). However, I am sure there would be unintended consequences for that as well.

Same thing in Seattle. I think the mayor there is trying or already changed some of them.

I think Minneapolis is also an interesting case study to watch. They eliminated all single family housing zones a few years ago, under a broad urban planning agenda called Minneapolis 2040. I think it is promising but only time will tell.

Read more about Minneapolis 2040 here:
https://minneapolis2040.com/

Currently, many universities in the United States use affirmative action in their admission process. Affirmative action means the considerations of race and ethnicity in the holistic evaluation of applicants. The practice allows universities to diversify their student body by recruiting more students from underrepresented backgrounds.

Affirmative action serves as a remedy for systemic inequality. A “color-blind” admission policy does not reflect fairness, considering the systemic hurdles for many minority students. Black and brown students often come from underfunded school districts with limited resources, due to the legacy of segregation and discriminatory policies in the country. [1] Studies have shown that standardized testing, an essential criterion in college admissions, poses a particular disadvantage to minority students. Furthermore, students from marginalized and low-income backgrounds likely have less time and opportunities for extracurricular activities. [2] These disadvantages call for a mechanism like affirmative action to even the playing field for these groups.

Diversity in higher education institutions benefits not only the targeted students but also the institutions themselves. Many institutions have argued that diversity represents an educational advantage in itself. Students with more awareness of other groups may learn from each other and obtain a better education. In a decision in November 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the educational value of a diverse student body. The decision serves as a ruling for a challenge against Harvard University for its use of affirmative action.

For these reasons, higher education institutions in the United States should adopt affirmative action in their admissions.

[1]. Maxwell, Connor, and Sara Garcia. 2019. "5 Reasons To Support Affirmative Action In College Admissions". Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/.

[2]. Augustin, Stanley. 2018. "Harvard’S Affirmative Action Case And The Case For Diversity In Higher Education". Blog. Lawyer’S Committee For Civil Rights Under Law. https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/harvards-affirmative-action-case-and-the-case-for-diversity-in-higher-education/?gclid=CjwKCAiAouD_BRBIEiwALhJH6Ho-o5pSCrhaS2ztua6HPs2Xiueo6b1QJ4GyGGB1qqEuqwUk0LQVixoCl8oQAvD_BwE.

[3]. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 2020, 19-2005. United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit.

This is only a strong suspicion, since I do not have hard data to back it up. However, I think private tutoring may have a great impact on testing results. This element of outside help further tilts the scale for those with resources.

The U.S. housing market has become increasingly unaffordable. As more people become renters after failing to qualify for a mortgage, the supply of affordable rental units has decreased. [1] Consequently, some have turned to government-mandated rent control as a policy solution. The policy can take many shapes, from mandating specific prices to banning further rises in payment (the latter is more common). The policy does yield at least short-term results. Rent control has reduced housing costs and improved stability for its beneficiaries. [2,3] However, substantial evidence has shown rent control to be ineffective and counterproductive in the long run.

Rent control often misses its targeted groups. Due to the below-market prices, people living in rent-controlled units have little incentive to move out. In the long run, reduced mobility can lead to significant mismatches between renters and rental units. A small-sized household may choose to occupy a big apartment for its mandated affordability, which forces a big family to squeeze into a small apartment. [4] The mismatch also leads rental control to benefit general long-term renters instead of specific groups in need. A study of rent control policies in Cambridge, MA shows that targeted groups (the elderly, low-income groups, and families) are almost equally likely to be in rent-controlled units as in not controlled ones. [1]

Rental control generates significant negative externalities. With rent control in place, landlords may become incentivized to make up for their losses in other places, such as their properties in areas outside of rent control. Perhaps, as a result, renters in non-controlled units tend to pay more than they would have without the rent control policy. [1] The policy may also add burdens to adjacent homeowners. Rental control in Cambridge back in the 1990s devalued properties by $3 billion, of which $2 billion fell to people in non-controlled areas. Moreover, only about $300 million of that cost became benefits to the renters in controlled units. [4] Thus, rent control imposes significant loss to local homeowners, with limited benefits to renters.

Rent control may depress the supply of rental units in the long run. A study of rent control policies in San Francisco shows a 15% decrease of renters living in controlled units. This decrease occurred because many owners chose to convert the apartments into condos, move into the units themselves, or build new structures, as responses to the policy. [4] This strain on housing supply could lead to a further decrease in the affordability of housing.

For these reasons, government-mandated rent control is a bad policy.

[1]. Tatian, Peter. 2013. "Is Rent Control Good Policy?". Blog. The Blog Of The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rent-control-good-policy.

[2]. Turner, Margery Austin. 1988. "Rent Control And The Availability Of Affordable Housing In The District Of Columbia''. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/rent-control-and-availability-affordable-housing-district-columbia/view/full_report.

[3]. Rajasekaran, Prasanna, Mark Treskon, and Solomon Greene. 2019. "Rent Control: What Does The Research Tell Us About The Effectiveness Of Local Action?". The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/rent-control-what-does-research-tell-us-about-effectiveness-local-action.

[4]. Diamond, Rebecca. 2018. "What Does Economic Evidence Tell Us About The Effects Of Rent Control?". The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) represents an inherently political doctrine. It outlines a code of conduct for all countries in an international setting. The Declaration should, for its purpose, be considered universal.

A relativist argument against the UDHR seems tempting. There is no doubt that the doctrine has political biases: drafted by certain countries with their understanding of human rights. Logically, the rights outlined do not represent universality, because not all groups instinctively and culturally adopt these principles.

However, this argument ignores the inherently political nature of human rights. One should not consider human rights as innate and pre-institutional claims to a certain freedom. Instead, they serve as agreed-upon rules of conduct. As philosopher Pablo Gilabert put it, human rights are “claims that individuals have against certain institutional structures, in particular modern states, in virtue of interests they have in contexts that include them.” [1] Thus, the UDHR serves as a necessary contract between nations as international engagement becomes increasingly common. Different countries and cultures do not have to have originally practiced the ideas in the doctrine. Their political consents (such as signatures) are sufficient to signal their acceptance of the doctrine. Thus, the UDHR processes at least a certain level of universality, because it is a part of an agreed-upon code of conduct in international politics.

Such dynamics play out within cultures as well. It seems unreasonable to tie ethics entirely to cultural norms. “X culture believes in value A” does not mean everyone in culture X has an inherent tendency to believe in value A. Instead, it means that people with diverse and conflicting ideas in culture X, often collectively prioritize value A above contradicting values. [2] Similarly, the UDHR reflects an international consensus between diverse opinions as a common code of conduct. The consensus in no way requires a whole-hearted embrace. We feel comfortable saying “X culture believes in value A”, even though not everyone in X culture inherently and fully embraces value A. What, then, is different about saying “ the UDHR reflects a universal agreed-upon standard of human rights”, even though not all signatories originally held and practiced these rules?

To be clear, the cultural critique of the UDHR reflects a legitimate concern. Perhaps the rules outlined in the doctrine could have incorporated more diverse ideas. Further amendments to the UDHR could empower a more balanced doctrine. However, to completely reject its universality is wrong. The rejection is wrong because it misunderstands the criterion for universality (a political rather than an innate agreement). It is wrong because it ascribes to a simplistic relationship between culture and ethics. It is wrong because it judges an international rule book by the standard of an ethnography.

Most importantly, a relativist approach to the UDHR undermines its effectiveness. If pushed far enough, the approach would hinder effective inter-cultural judgments. It gives too much power to different national authorities to interpret the term “human rights.” It allows oppressive governments to equate their infringements of their citizens to mere cultural phenomena. That moral ambiguity can further complicate an already insufficient process for international bodies to intervene in human rights violations.

For these reasons, the UDHR should process perceived universality as a political doctrine.

[1]. Gilabert, Pablo. 2011. "Humanist And Political Perspectives On Human Rights". Political Theory 39 (4): 439-467. doi:10.1177/0090591711408246.

[2] Li, Xiaorong. 2007. "A Cultural Critique Of Cultural Relativism". American Journal Of Economics And Sociology 66 (1): 151-171. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00502.x.

Our current model of capitalism originated from the thinking of Milton Friedman back in 1970. Professor Friedman promoted a narrow view of corporate responsibility, that corporations should answer only to their shareholders. [1] Decades later, this idea of shareholder capitalism has received increasing criticism due to its perceived social harms: increasing inequality, climate crisis, etc. Many scholars and CEOs have promoted an alternative form of capitalism, one that focuses on all stakeholders. [2]

While stakeholder capitalism does not have a strict definition, it generally encourages businesses to care for people beyond their owners or board members. Instead, they should seek the maximum benefit of everyone affected by their operation (every stakeholder), such as consumers, employees, and the environment. This view encourages businesses to voluntarily do what many want to force onto them, such as raising their minimum wage or strengthening their environmental standards.

The case for stakeholder capitalism stems out of necessity. Fifty years after the theory of Milton Friedman, it has become clear that shareholder capitalism is not sustainable. While our society has witnessed great benefits from fast development, not everyone received their share of the outcomes. Across the world, inequalities are growing along with class, racial and geographical lines. Big corporations have used their outsized influence to discourage fair market competition. Our environment is deteriorating, and the cost of fixing the damages grows with each day of inaction. Shareholder capitalism has made businesses entirely focused on short-term growth, regardless of long-term prospects. Considering the magnitude of the problems, governments and NGOs likely cannot fix them alone, without the transformation of businesses. Therefore, stakeholder capitalism represents a necessary path away from escalating disasters.

Businesses, however, do not necessarily have to suffer under stakeholder capitalism. Growing evidence suggests a vibrant and profitable market in stakeholder capitalism. A recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey concludes that businesses with long-term visions enjoy better growth than their peers. [3] Consumers and job seekers increasingly value the social commitment of businesses when making decisions. [4] Businesses that embrace the new model, then, could enjoy a competitive advantage in the product and the employment market. In the long run, the interests of shareholders and stakeholders do not have to constitute a zero-sum game.

For these reasons, shareholder capitalism represents a better model of production than stakeholder capitalism.

[1]. Friedman, Milton. 1970. "A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is To Increase Its Profits". The New York Times, , 1970. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.

[2]. Dealbook Newsletter. 2020. "Greed Is Good. Except When It’S Bad.". The New York Times, , 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-essay-anniversary.html.

[3]. Hunt, Vivian, Bruce Simpson, and Yuito Yamada. 2020. "The Case For Stakeholder Capitalism". McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-case-for-stakeholder-capitalism.

[4]. Whittaker, Martin. 2019. "5 Reasons To Give Stakeholder Capitalism A Chance". Forbes, , 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinwhittaker/2019/09/12/five-reasons-to-give-stakeholder-capitalism-a-chance/?sh=5f82c0104626.

I think part of the idea is that businesses have an incentive to transition themselves. However, there are policies available to facilitate the process. Some states in the U.S, for example, have passed benefit corporation law. The legislation changes business owners' exclusive legal responsibility to profit and to shareholders. It frees the business owners to consider more stakeholders' interests.

While there are debates about the efficacy of the benefit corporation law, it serves as a good example of a legislative push for a different kind of capitalism.

Read more about Benefit Corporation here:
https://benefitcorp.net/policymakers/why-pass-benefit-corporation-legislation