[kilroy123]

I completely agree with you, but... How about don't vote in leaders that only care about helping out their rich buddies then?

The Scandinavian countries have moved to pay all payrolls to keep people paid during all this madness, instead of just bailing out large debt holders.

[dlkf]

It's tough when your country isn't much of a democracy. A major difference between Scandinavia and the US/Canada/many others is that proportional representation plays a much greater role in the electoral system here.

[stcredzero]

It's a good thing, when a republic is constructed so that a minority still has a voice. One might perceive them as the "wrong" minority today, in the current context. In the future, they might well be the "correct" minority.

(That said, I think Sweden of all places in the west, have had the best, most sane reaction to the pandemic.)

[oblio]

And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice?

They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system. If you are American, please check out some European political systems. You'll find that politics in Europe are a lot more nuanced and minorities in general are much, much better represented.

[stcredzero]

And do you think that in Sweden of all places, minorities don't have a voice?

I don't know if you intended it that way, but the above feels like you're trying to put words in my mouth to that effect. No, I don't think I said that minorities are voiceless in Sweden.

They have more of a voice, because they don't have a two party system.

Right. Again, as Matt Easton says, "Context!" If the US were to go fully democratic, with our two parties, no electoral college, and everything done proportionally, things in the US would suck for constituencies smaller than 50%. Particularly with discourse being what it is in 2020.

However, if you know of a way to do away with the US two party system, I'm all ears.

Also, when I read your comment above, I tend to read it in my head as sounding angry and patronizing. Hopefully, you didn't mean it the way of, "What, you ignorant fool, do you not know...etc...?"

[int_19h]

The system as it is sucks for more than 50% of the population, though. With a two-party system, you're either going to have tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Neither is good, but the former is preferable.

[stcredzero]

Neither is good, but the former is preferable.

This is why being gay before 1950 was so great: because the majority of society got its way. That's why there was segregation in many places in the US back then: because the majority of society got its way. It took the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to get the in-built principles and mechanisms which are there in the US system to protect the minority to really apply. And yes, it was in part the action of the national majority which got that to happen.

The usual reason why people say the majority should get its absolute way, is generally because they are in the group who would come out on top. That's a shortsighted view. Even the majority is human and gets it dead wrong sometimes. This is why certain human rights need to be inviolate. This is why every government needs some sort of mechanism which gives the minority out-sized power. The US just does it in this particular way.

[Mc_Big_G]

What minority are you even talking about?

[stcredzero]

What minority are you even talking about

Any of them.

Some of them, I'm in. Some of them, I'll never be in. The principle is universal: A just society protects the minority. Any of them.

[sundaeofshock]

It’s one thing to protect the minority from the majority; it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority. At some point the US will come apart because of our current political dynamics.

[stcredzero]

it’s another to allow the minority to constantly overrule the majority

That's the whole point of protecting the minority. Otherwise, if the majority always wins, and the minority has to be satisfied with the crumbs left by the majority, the minority has effectively zero power. It's like writing an API. You know you're doing it right, when things mostly work, but there's someone, somewhere sorely dissatisfied with not getting their way.

In the words of one fictional British gentleman, "You don't have it. I don't have it. That's detente, comrade!"

[losteric]

Any of them? Including groups that want to oppress others?

[stcredzero]

Including groups that want to oppress others?

Of course. Rights have to be universal, even for people with such desires. Otherwise, whomever has the power to adjudge what others are "actually" thinking have the power to remove people's human rights.

The dynamics where accusation is enough, guilt is assumed, and no proof is needed are often abused to have power over others. If there was ever a time when this should be obvious, it is 2020, present day.

In fact, all of the above is the whole point of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

[JoshuaDavid]

"Protects" is not equivalent to "grants the political wishes of". For example, people who want to abolish free speech still have the right to argue for the abolition of free speech.

[Theodores]

In the UK there is a lot of payroll being paid by central government, plus there are interest free loans for small businesses.

This is very good on the surface, however, there is a large chunk of wealth going to the rentier class. The rentseekers were encouraged under successive Tory and New Labour governments with schemes such as 'buy to let'. Now they are the only truly protected sector of society. The rich get richer.

[simonh]

Buy to let has been heavily discourages by changes to the tax system and stamp duties in the last few years, so this is an unreasonable characterisation. The previous long-running Labour government did far less to discourage buy to let and other rent seeking activities than recent Conservative governments in the UK.

Yes rent seeking activities are a serious problem and I think there's a consensus forming on this, at least in the UK.

[incog_nit0]

> The rentseekers were encouraged under successive Tory and New Labour governments with schemes such as 'buy to let'. Now they are the only truly protected sector of society. The rich get richer.

There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't say rentseekers are the only truly protected sector of society. My parents put their life savings into buying a block of flats in the 90s. They borrowed from every single person they knew and took out a mortgage against their own home and put most of their subsequent savings into paying off the mortgage sooner.

The last mortage payment is due end of this year and they were looking forward to leaving their full time jobs whilst maintaining their little property 'empire'.

So far this month they've had 3 tenants call asking for rent reductions, 1 totally unable to pay rent and another insisting on a 20% discount because their friend's landlords are offering the same.

Maintaining that block of 10 flats is no picnic. It means you're on call to unblock toilets on bank holidays or clean, paint, draft tenancy agreements and file paperwork on your evenings and weekends.

Of course - owning an appreciating asset means you're better off than someone who doesn't but you're not quite sitting pretty.

[Frondo]

That is unfortunate. All business has risk; becoming a property owner is no different. I anecdotally know a few people who bought second homes to rent out, and they're facing a crunch too. I don't see why, though, small-time landlords should be treated different from other small business owners when it comes to society-wide crises like these.

[coryfklein]

Trump was elected on a populist, "drain the swamp" agenda. The public is notoriously bad at predicting which candidate will help the people, and which will "help out their rich buddies."

[stcredzero]

The public is notoriously bad at predicting which candidate will help the people, and which will "help out their rich buddies."

For the latter, you can get pretty close with this algorithm:

    WillHelpRichBuddies() {
        return true
    }

[dcow]

Great! So just pick people with benevolent rich buddies.

[stcredzero]

I completely agree with you, but... How about don't vote in leaders that only care about helping out their rich buddies then?

Tone deafness in the media and the social and governmental leadership of any country is a key reason why demagogues and sociopaths get into power. This has been the case across time and cultures.

The Scandinavian countries have moved to pay all payrolls to keep people paid during all this madness, instead of just bailing out large debt holders.

Watch Louis Rossman's YouTube coverage of the US programs as a potential recipient/applicant. As a small business owner, he has a front seat to the incompetence of US lawmakers. It's the same kind of thing which smells like grandstanding incompetence, which also afflicted the "banking reforms" post 2008. The laws aren't written by and for people who actually know how things work.

[greedo]

Oh they're definitely written by and for people who actually know how things work. They're written by Congressional aides and advisors who do exactly what they're told by the donors to the politicians. The politicians don't care what's in the bills, they care how the voters will react.