Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang: 'Political Violence Is Becoming More and More of an Inevitability'

The former presidential candidate talks about UBI, race relations, ranked-choice voting, his new political party Forward, and how "the duopoly is killing us."

|

Andrew Yang's run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination didn't last all that long, but his support for a universal basic income (UBI) pushed that arcane topic to the center of ongoing policy debates about how best to help Americans dislocated by technological and economic change.

The 46-year-old entrepreneur, who also ran unsuccessfully this year to become New York City's mayor, has a new book out. Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, is part campaign memoir and part political manifesto in which he outlines the principles and policies he thinks are essential to making America once again a land of opportunity. To further his agenda, he has also launched the Forward Party, which proclaims it is neither left nor right in its mission statement.

"We can tell that the duopoly is killing us," says Yang. "It's turning us against each other. Political stress is at civil war levels. Political violence is becoming more and more of an inevitability." The Forward Party's core principles include pushing for open primaries and ranked-choice voting, creating a basic income for all citizens, promoting "human-centered capitalism," and infusing politics with "grace and tolerance."

He talked about all that—and how his agenda intersects with libertarian ideas—with Reason's Nick Gillespie.

Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images/Sipa USA/Newscom

NEXT: The Biden White House Is Lying About the Democrats' Spending Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Let's go fuck Joe Brandon

      1. Are you want to lose your weight 6 KG in a month.......? http://www.Fitapp1.com

        1. Are I? Am you going to learn English grammar?

          1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

            Try now…see…………… READ MORE

        1. That’s not nice. Everyone here is really niceto you, and this is how you act?

    2. Fuck Joe Biden, we should have gotten Brandon.

      1. Brandon Herrera? Yeah, he would be an oligo-issue president, but he would certainly do less harm.

      2. Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.JTv You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..

        Go Here..............Earn App

    3. Fuck Joe Biden, Hail Tulpa, Fuck White Mike, Let's go Brandon.

    4. He is right

      Unless the blue coastal states secede peacefully, but her will be a second American Civil War

      1. I am making a good salary online from home. I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.HGf I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

        Try it, you won't regret it!........ VISIT HERE

  2. Bud, if you support the UBI, you are a socialist and belong in the Democratic party with AOC, Bernie, and Lizzie.

    1. Ditto "human-centered capitalism," which is businesses forced to run by "stakeholders" instead of owners, according to "social justice" instead of profit.

    2. Yang had a great interview on Rogan's podcast about UBI that actually won some of us over. Yang explained UBI was to be a complete replacement for all the myriad and inefficient welfare programs out there already and not in addition to. Instead of the government picking winners and losers, everyone would receive it. Is it libertarian? Hell no, but it's an interesting idea.

      1. It's certainly more libertarian than what we have.

      2. It's still socialism no matter how you color it.

      3. It’s delusional. Ok, so you get rid of welfare and get ubi. Next week the evening news features a welfare mom who blew her ubi on beer and lotto tix and now the kids have no food or shoes. The following week we pass the food and shoe program and within 2 years we have all the old programs plus ubi plus a few new ones. We also have expanded the third rail of electoral politics to include everyone. So now every election is about how to increase turnout by increasing ubi, with empty promises of reform, just like Mc and ss is now.

      4. And if you believe that he's also got a bridge in Brooklyn he can sell you.

        1. If it’s a bridge to an equitable future, let’s buy it! —(I’m posting from the Shiticon Valley, feel free to ignore me)

    3. Except that some libertarians also support a UBI as a non-intrusive, relatively non-bureacratic alternative to the welfare state? It has a classical liberal pedigree when the dividend is funded through economic rent from natural resources.

      Not saying Yang's proposal is any good. It pretty much sucks. But not all UBI proposals are ridiculous.

      1. My Universal Basic Income idea is this:

        In my understanding of the Natural Universe, if you work at providing a peaceful, honest good or service that others are willing to pay for, or if you invest your justly-acquired money or other capital into ventures that pay dividends or invest in commodities that increase in value over time, then Basically you have Income and you have the right to do with 100 percent of that Income whatever the Hell you please!

        See there? It's Universal, it's Basic, and it's Income. Who could ask for anything more?

        1. Nah, that's crazy talk.

      2. I think it's an interesting idea.

        An even better alternative to the welfare state is FULL employment through light restrictions on immigration.

  3. Dude's a couple of years late.

  4. January 6 had a peaceful protestor murdered due to wrong speak under the auspice of trespassing. So yeah.

    1. "peaceful protestor" = one of a mob of 500 breaking and entering

      (had to turn on Google Wingnut Translator)

      1. Except in authoritarian circles, trespassing does not result in a death penalty.
        Had Babbitt been guilty of posting kiddie porn online I could accept death by firing squad. Not necessarily agree with it but accept it. Pieces of shit without a moral compass that collect and distribute such evil have no place on this planet.

        1. Honestly, did SPB ever try to explain why he posted CP? Or does he just pretend that everyone will forget?

          1. He just ignores the allegations and inquiries. Pretends that they're not there.

          2. He went into denial mode for a while before inadvertently admitting it one day, and just ignores it now since that self-own.

            1. You're QAnon lying scum.

              1. Not the same as denying it.

              2. At least I'm not a hicklib pederast waste of carbon molecules.

          3. I haven’t been here that long, (never experienced hihn) so I stay away from accusations of sockpuppeting, kiddie diddling, shit eating, and stolen valor……

            But man, that guy is a fuckin doosh.

            1. John was the master of boldface. Ave, civii!

        2. Had Babbitt been guilty of posting kiddie porn online I could accept death by firing squad.

          Even then she gets a trial first. And, while I know this may make me a loony, alt-right conservative libertarian nutjob, distributing porn of any kind on the internet isn't itself an act of aggression and, as has been debated here, arguably protected free speech. Production OTOH...

      2. Just like every other protest in Washington in the last two years, you dishonest fuck.

        In fact Jan 6 wasn't even one tenth as violent as the ones your loving Uncle George funded for the August prior. You know, where you guys burned down a historic church, injured 200 officers and launched violent attacks on the Whitehouse that caused the president and staff to be evacuated.

      3. "one of a mob of 500 breaking and entering"

        200, and the videos all show the guards lifting barricades and opening doors, so your breaking allegations are bullshit too. But that's neither here nor there.
        The important bit is that you think "trespassing" in the most public space in America, deserves the death penalty.

        What a fucking Nazi you are Buttplug.

      4. Much more ‘mostly peaceful’ than your fellow Marxist pedophiles in antifa.

      5. Does that also include the "mostly peaceful protests" downtown where windows were broken, stores looted and a church was burned down...all in the name of some nebulous idea of racial equity?
        How many police cars were set afire? How many people seriously injured? Even the White House wasn't sparred.
        Since the left was involved and not the Proud Boys or Trump Supporters, it was white washed over by the CNN, MSNBC and other liberal news outlets.
        "Mostly peaceful but fiery protests". Jesus K.Rist! Everything has been turned upside down!

    2. Don't forget the dead from the Summer of love and the related annexation of territory from the US by violent partisans along with billions in damages. Unless by inevitable he means last year he's too deluded to consider seriously.

      1. CHAZ/CHOP.
        Portland is officially a third world city.
        Just consider which party is running that town.

  5. human-centered capitalism

    I very much prefer capital-centered humanism.

  6. "creating a basic income for all citizens, promoting "human-centered capitalism,"

    In other words he wants to use political violence to force people to give up their money via taxation AND he support the concept of coerced state-mandated economic associations for capitalism for a supposed "human- centered" purpose when real capitalism is a free market based upon freedom of (market) association

  7. We can tell that the duopoly is killing us," says Yang. "It's turning us against each other. Political stress is at civil war levels....The Forward Party's core principles include pushing for open primaries and ranked-choice voting, creating a basic income for all citizens, promoting "human-centered capitalism," and infusing politics with "grace and tolerance."

    Another 'national level stuff is ugly and broken and owned by DeRp. Let's have another national party to piss in the wind about DeRp.'

    1. And somehow the "centrists" always seem to want more of our money too.

  8. Schmuck can't understand that it's not the duopoly which is destroying 1776, but government itself. The 1787 Constitution can no more limit this leviathan than the Articles of Confederation could prevent its illegal successor from coming into force. I suppose that's karma in action, but it still sucks.

  9. promoting "human-centered capitalism,"

    Human-centered capitalism got us Silicon Valley, literally the worst capitalists in history.

    Go back to selling me a widget while wearing a plaid leisure suit. Back then, I knew what I was getting. Now I've got a trillionaire in a pair of cargo shorts and Birkenstocks, boarding a private jet to Davos, telling me he's not really in it for the money, but wants to improve the human condition. Fuck off.

    1. Human-centered capitalism got us Silicon Valley, literally the worst capitalists in history.

      "Let's give a bunch of socially maladapted geeks, who remain bitter about not getting to fuck a cheerleader in high school, a whole bunch of money and connections to the political power structure. What could possibly go wrong?"

      1. It's the fact that they WANT connections to the political power structure. It's clear that's where these guys want to be. Zuckerberg doesn't want to run a company that allows people to post LOLPics and "Likes" on a forum, he wants to be sitting at sumptuous dinners, rubbing elbows with European political leaders and heavy hitters. That's where his interests are, and Facebook Corp is just a conduit to get him there.

        I have far more trust in the Capitalist who just wants to build a mansion with a flashy gold-plated toilet and have a tiger in his backyard than I do a guy who is negotiating with elections officials to "fortify" the next election.

        1. "I have far more trust in the Capitalist who just wants to build a mansion with a flashy gold-plated toilet and have a tiger in his backyard than I do a guy who is negotiating with elections officials to “fortify” the next election."

          That touches what I think is a key problem with otherwise independent thinkers that are fairly tolerant to cognitive dissonance. I see guys like Russel Brand (a marxist) get highly critical of media bias and talk about the possibility of civil war in a very recent video. Then he goes on to blame it all on corporations and capitalism. These people are painfully naive. Money isn't the driver here. If it were, Zuckerberg et al. would have stopped a long fucking time ago. But they keep going and going, despite having amassed a fortune that would be enough for a thousand lifetimes. But of course, money is the root of all evil.

          1. Those "thinkers" learned only one lesson: "follow the money".

            Which can be illustrative, sometimes, but neglects the fact the people are motivated by more than just monetary wealth: fame, sex, and power itself being the foremost.

            More challenging to measure, sometimes, but pretending the cash flow tells the whole story is very limiting in understanding.

      2. "What could possibly go wrong?”"

        If my experience working in the companies created and run by these socially maladapted geeks is any guide, it means a world filled with man-children groping, harassing and often raping the trophy women they get into their power and expecting to get away with it by yelling loudly about stupid rednecks.

      3. I still say Zuckerberg is an alien/ human hybrid.

    2. Oh, not plaid! That is so Matt Lesko! *Barf!*

    3. FACT: And who continuously crank out products that don't work well.

      1. I was going to say, more critical to the point, whether the products work well or not, they increasingly want to remove the human aspect of their users to give them better control.

  10. I think Yang has half a good idea here. The major structural problem that I see is that both sides of the duopoly have completely sullied their reputation in app. 1/3 of the country to the point that they cannot provide necessary competition for the other, and that neither properly represents the interests of the remaining third. Which is a roundabout way of saying that what might really gain some traction is a suburbs-first party that can both check Team Red's excesses in more rural areas, and Team Blue's in urban ones.

    Maybe the Libertarians could have stepped in to fill this void, but they've their own poor reputation as a gadfly party and their members' utter contempt for coalition politics to deal with. But if something like I describe comes to fore I wouldn't be surprised if it's libertarians form a key bloc of its base.

    1. "Libertarianism will never be a major political force because it's not really a political movement, it's an anti-political movement." -- PJ O'Rourke.

      1. He’s gotten kind of squishy over the last decade.

    2. Which is a roundabout way of saying that what might really gain some traction is a suburbs-first party that can both check Team Red’s excesses in more rural areas, and Team Blue’s in urban ones.

      That's basically the role they've played ever since World War II, though. The mostly white, upper-middle class suburbs have always looked down on the rubes in the sticks while being repulsed by the excesses of neurotic urbanites. The only things they really ever cared about were low property taxes, good schools that weren't sullied by a bunch of ghetto trash, and endless consoooooooooomer choices.

      Expecting the suburbs to act as a check on any political party is an exercise in breath-holding that never works out. They tend to follow whatever the popular mass media consensus at the time happens to be, and currently that's behavioral-sink progressivism.

    3. We're in the midst of some shifts and realignments of the coalitions inside the parties. Midwestern swing states that used to be the Democrats' bread and butter are now Reagan/Trump Democrats. The pandemic, the lockdowns, and the economy made everyone crazy for a while. And we shouldn't confuse what we see on cable and broadcast news with reality. When the dust settles, people haven't really changed, and we'll end up with two parties--so long as we have single member districts. The Democrat leadership appears to be going kamikaze before they retire. This is a phase. This is not the new normal.

    4. “I think Yang has half a good idea here.” Are we waiting for Mr Ying to deliver the other half?

  11. In recent days, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has told associates that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party if President Joe Biden and Democrats on Capitol Hill do not agree to his demand to cut the size of the social infrastructure bill from $3.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion, according to people who have heard Manchin discuss this. Manchin has said that if this were to happen, he would declare himself an “American Independent.” And he has devised a detailed exit strategy for his departure."

    ----Mother Jones

    "SCOOP: Manchin Tells Associates He’s Considering Leaving the Democratic Party and Has an Exit Plan"

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/senator-joe-manchin-democratic-party-exit-plan-biden-infrastructure-deal-exclusive/

    I don't think the Democrats can cut that much from the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill--and keep 95 of the 99 Progressives in the House on board. And it's telling that as time goes on, Manchin and Sinema keep becoming bolder in their demands. Sinema just came out today saying that she opposes raising taxes on the wealthy, on businesses, and raising the capital gains tax. How do you pass a bill like that in the House? If Pelosi loses four votes in the House, the bill is toast.

    1. Seeing the Democrats lose control of the Senate over this is too much to hope for.

      1. Manchin's threats are grain of salt types to me.

        1. The Democrats keep cutting things from the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, and they aren't doing it because they want to cut it. If the Democrat leadership is taking Manchin seriously enough to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from their bill--and risk enraging the Progressive Congressional Caucus--why shouldn't we?

          1. I totally see what you're saying and am always hopeful I just fall short of trusting words from any (D) ...

            Def Leppard gimme action action action not words

            1. Half of me is saying there's no way this dies, but I want to believe.

              1. Senator McConnell looks more sagacious with each passing day.

                1. I thought that word might be sage related. Thanks for making me look up that word!

      2. Yeah, they won't lose control because Manchin would certainly continue to caucus with them even as an independent (same way Bernie does)

        1. Then they better make him a chair of something important, or the Republicans will offer him something better.

          1. There's a piece in the Hill where Manchin denies and clarifies the Mother Jones piece. What he says he actually did was he privately told the democratic party leadership that he would be willing to leave the party and become an independent if they wanted him to do so and they thought it would help them with their voters.

            I'm inclined to believe Manchin's version of what he said for this simple reason: he already has just about all the leverage he needs over almost everything in the negotiations right now. Not only would him leaving the democrats not give him any additional power and leverage he doesn't already have, it could arguably actually give him LESS leverage, and would almost certainly cause him to lose even more good will among his fellow democrats than he already has. If Chuck Schumer is the person telling Mother Jones the info they put in their piece, then he's even far more stupid than I already suspected he is.

            The most interesting aspect of all this to me is what Manchin DIDN'T say. Specifically, he didn't deny that he has now moved from his original $1.5 trillion to $1.75 trillion. So I assume that he has. I haven't yet heard any other democrats though that they're willing to move off $3.5 trillion.

            Schumer should probably be extremely careful with how hard he pushes and tries to fucks with Manchin. He's at risk of screwing the whole entire thing up completely and getting nothing if he's not careful, and I'm not sure if he fully understands just how precarious his party's predicament is.

    2. Sinema just came out today saying that she opposes raising taxes on the wealthy, on businesses, and raising the capital gains tax.

      Jesus Christ, what the hell made Sinema so hard-headed on this one particular issue that she's talking this kind of heresy? I seriously don't think it was representatives of the 50-cent/Blue Check army trying to barge in on her while she took a piss, although I'm sure that didn't help. She's voted party line on everything else, to the best of my knowledge; why is this one thing such a bee in her bonnet? Her counterpart Mark Kelly is going along with it like the good little lapdog that he is; what's making her act like the Bizarro John McCain?

      1. Just for the record, here's the quote:

        "WASHINGTON—Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s opposition to tax increases is causing Senate Democrats to look at financing their social policy and climate package without raising tax rates on businesses, high-income individuals or capital gains, according to people familiar with the matter.

        The Arizona Democrat has told lobbyists that she is opposed to any increase in those rates, according to a person familiar with her remarks, but her stance is now pushing Democrats to more seriously plan for a bill that doesn’t include those major revenue increases."

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-cut-programs-durations-to-lower-cost-of-social-policy-and-climate-plan-11634747582?

        1. >>causing Senate Democrats to look at

          these verbs are ambiguous. if 7000 square feet for your new casa isn't enough Kyrsten, how about 8000?

        2. I have been pleasantly surprised by Sinema on this and one other damn thing she did right, I'm forgetting what. I don't know that I'd vote for her, as her stances on most things are proggie nonsense, but for an admitted (former?) Socialist, she has been oddly fiscally sane.

          Kelly is indeed a total Demo-lapdog, though. Kinda expected that going in. Sinema has exceeded expectations, though admittedly the bar was so low as to be in the basement.

          I want to buy a beer for whichever Scottsdale or Paradise Valley business leader bought her, or provided her with discreet extra-curricular hotties... but I probably don't need to as that motherfucker obviously be rich AF.

        3. That's it... she opposed the $15 minimum wage in Feb. 2021, and several times against Green New Deal crap.

          Of course, she's still into gun registration and licensing, and health care socialization, otherwise I might declare her no worse than several Republicans. (Damning with faint praise. Bizarro McCain indeed!)

          The vehemence from her own party is dwarfing anything I've seen before, though. They hate her with the flaming passion normally reserved to Mrs. White for Yvette ze French Maid. I'm popping popcorn!

      1. "Hmm!...Hmm!...Hmm!... After that, let's get some Fresh Air!"

    3. Manchin is denying he was planning to leave the dems.

  12. wondered where Nardz has been...

    1. Either trying to raise a private army, or he was FBI surveillance of the commentariat.

      1. I've noticed he disappears from time to time and doesn't comment much these days.

        If he's a glowie, maybe his boss figured out that he can't do any more about the shit-talking here than Preet could.

        1. on the whole I'm entirely too happy a person to join the war it up crowd.

  13. Political Violence Is Becoming More and More of an Inevitability

    The pacifists at antifa are quite disturbed about this.

    1. The Dems harassing their own Senators blame kulaks and wreckers.

    2. And the pacifist of BLM.

  14. Giving that there are about 290 million people in the US over the age of 18, writing checks to them for $1000 per month comes to just about 3 1/2 TRILLION dollars. Every year.

    Friedman's "reverse income tax" is NOTHING like this. Friedman's proposal would grant $$$ based on income, and would do away with the current welfare system entirely, reducing taxes significantly while giving more options to recipients.

    Andrew Yang needs to learn how to use a calculator.

    1. Andrew Yang: fighting racism, one stereotype at a time.

    2. And Friedman's fatal flaw was it forced the federal government to still know, categorize and calculate the income of millions of Americans, which it shouldn't do.

      1. "And Friedman’s fatal flaw was it forced the federal government to still know, categorize and calculate the income of millions of Americans, which it shouldn’t do."

        Agreed, though the solution is simple: eliminate 90% of "deductions" and make it a one-page form. I am pretty sure Friedman would be happy with that as well, since he proposed such stuff. So, it wasn't Friedman's "flaw," but rather that the government wouldn't have any reason to snoop -- and they seem to have a real love of snooping.

    3. Unless the benefits of "The Negative Income Tax" equalled the amount people get from EBT (called 'Food Stamps' in Milton Friedman's day,) WIC, Section 8 Housing, Utility subsidies, Earned Income Credit, and other "Gibs Mes," Friedman's idea wouldn't be a replacement.

      Also, the bureaucrats administering the existing programs won't willfully give up their cushy, phoney-baloney jobs for Friedman's idea! Hell, if there ever was a "Negative Income Tax" that replaced all Welfare State programs, you'd see deranged shooters "Going Social Worker" on us!

      And, as always, who pays for this train wreck? Friedman, as bright as he was, never satisfactorily answered that one.

      1. "Unless the benefits of “The Negative Income Tax” equalled the amount people get from EBT (called ‘Food Stamps’ in Milton Friedman’s day,) WIC, Section 8 Housing, Utility subsidies, Earned Income Credit, and other “Gibs Mes,” Friedman’s idea wouldn’t be a replacement."

        One could also add Social Security to that list, which I propose.

        "And, as always, who pays for this train wreck? Friedman, as bright as he was, never satisfactorily answered that one."

        Given that the bureaucracy supporting (personnel, etc) uses somewhere around 25%-30% of the allotted funds running these programs. it would be a net gain of about $500 billion. Not perfect, but a heck of a saving over what we are doing now. And, of course, who would want to give up those job? Therein lies the real barrier. IMHO of course.

  15. "Political stress is at civil war levels"

    I hear many people say this recently, including liberal and independent people with millions of views on youtube. Now Yang, a pretty independent thinker in the dem camp. That means something. Congratulation to the progressives. You may really get what you asked for. Very hard.

    1. The problem is I keep getting what the progressives ask for. Very hard.

  16. We already know what happens when you give tens of millions of people 1K to 2K per month. They quit working at age 62, take it easy, and vote against any attempt to cut back their benefits, even if the cash flow comes from lower income people with no savings.

    1. They quit working at 22. FTFY.

  17. Using his Cassandra antics to inflame tensions, he doesn't seem to realize that government IS the problem; instead he just wants to expand it, possibly even more than the Democrats do.

  18. "We can tell that the duopoly is killing us," says Yang."

    It's not a duopoly, Andy, when one side acts like Boss Hogg and the other exactly like Pol Pot.
    Time to get your head out of your ass and look at what the Democrats did over the last nine months.

    1. Can you imagine if Boss Hogg and Pol Pot joined forces?

      Enos: Well, Dukes, I hate to do this, but it's all for the glory of Kampuchea and the Khmer...*Whimpers!*...

      Roscoe P. Coletrane: "Gimmie that AK, you Revisionist Dipstick! Jesse! Bo! Luke! Daisy! Up against the wall!

      'To Keep You Is No Benefit! To Destroy You Is No Loss!'

      K-gud!-K-gud!-K-gud!-K-gud!!..."

      Waylon Gennings (Showing his pants and not his face on TV):

      "Weeeell, it looks like Bo and Luke got caught reading the labels of Penzoil, Daisy was found with tips in her work apron, and Uncle Jesse was feeding the chickens in his Jean-Paul Sartre specticles! Will Crazy Cooter and The General Lee get there in time?..."

        1. Kelly LeBrock's Eighties slogan: " Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful" takes on a whole new meaning here...

  19. Predicting political violence is a full-scale industry among leftists. It's more wishful thinking and sham bravado than predictive.

    Yang is cranking up the shrill in an attempt to remain relevant.

  20. Which capitalist do you trust more:

    1. Used car salesman named Earl with matching belt and shoes and the inflatable wavy man in the parking lot.

    2. New car produced by Silicon Valley with the latest technology, where the car literally comes with a Terms of Service which can change retroactively at any time, can have features added or removed via OTA / Remote programming by said company, and your ability to fill its tank or batteries-- or even turn it on can be revoked from a Health and Safety team somewhere in Menlo Park.

    I'll take the old non-human-centered capitalism every single time.

    1. No Wavy Man! C'mon, Man! Capitalism can afford to not look stupid.

      And, of course, there are apps now to avoid such false dilemmas.

    2. Why should trust be a part of the equation at all? This society is full of fucking stupid people. How about they get rights, not be left only with intuitions about which back-slapping greaseball won't out-monkey them?

      1. Are you drunk?

  21. You know who else said: "Forward?"...

  22. A song keeps running through my head - - - - -
    If I listen long enough to you ,
    I'll find a way to believe it's all true,
    Knowing that you lied
    straight-faced while I cried,
    Still I look to find a reason to believe.

  23. I tend to see American presidents and Canadian prime ministers as mostly symbolically ‘in charge’, beneath the most power-entrenched and saturated national/corporate interests and institutions. To me, our elected heads ‘lead’ a virtual corpocracy, i.e. “a society dominated by politically and economically large corporations”.

    In Canada (and maybe America), corporate lobbyists actually write bills for governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, supposedly to save the elected officials their own time. I believe the practice has become so systematic here that those who are aware of it (that likely includes mainstream news-media political writers) don’t bother publicly discussing it. Something that should never have been even considered, has actually become normalized.

    For so much of this, we can credit our First Past The Post electoral-system dinosaur. FPTP barely qualifies as democratic rule within the democracy spectrum, though it seems to well-serve corporate interests. I believe it's basically why those powerful interests generally resist attempts at changing from FPTP to proportional representation electoral systems of governance, the latter which dilutes lobbyist influence.

    From my understanding, when it comes to big-business friendly thus favored electoral systems, low-representation FPTP-elected governments, in which a relatively small portion of the country's populace is actually electorally represented, are the easiest for lobbyists to manipulate or 'buy'. It's because in FPTP-elected governments, in regards to votes/voters and government accountability to them. A much more proportionately representative electoral system should create a greater challenge for the lobbyists; the resultant government, which much more proportionately represents the electorate as a whole, should be considerably harder for big business to steer — if at all, in some cases.

    The people should be democratically deciding, proportionately, who governs them and under what terms. Not some unseen, unacknowledged maximum-profit-motivated machine.

  24. He has some pretty sane ideas, but he's got that tech bro mentality, I've heard tell. A third party, huh. Didn't take much political science in college did you, four-eyes?

    1. Lol. Tony has a problem with someone. Shocking!

  25. Universal basic income is socialism. Period. And along with that Yang would steal people's earning by force/ and threats of violence by the government's officially licensed thieves, the IRS. Just remember what happens to people when they don't pay the government's extortionists.
    So Yang contradicts himself when he complains of political violence, yet he would have no problem using force and even violence to pay for his socialist welfare programs.
    Speaking of political violence, Rep. Matt gaetz has issued a statement concerning threats to kill him from a person claiming to have orders from Portland. The police asked the DOJ to investigate and even arrest the person of interest but the DOJ declined to do so.
    Had that threat been made to Omar, Tlaib or Cortez, the DOJ would be all over it and CNN would be hyping it up as a right wing murder conspiracy.
    So where is all the political violence coming from?

  26. Sustainable HR Consultancy Hey check this out helpful blog, Amazingly compiled!

  27. Sustainable HR Hey check this out helpful blog, Amazingly compiled!

  28. Rebellion?

    The vermin who brought us to this dark moment are a sign of how flawed our system gas become. We now face the prospect of socialistic Fascism under a demented, corrupt President Joe "Beijing" Biden. What to do? Rebellion?

    The Founding Fathers favored rebellion against tyranny, even violent rebellion.

    “There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” -Peter Muhlenberg (1746-1807) ; from a Lutheran sermon read at Woodstock, Virginia (JAN1776)

    Even President Jefferson favored periodic rebellion against ever-threatening tyranny.

    “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

    Given recent events, Mr. Yang may be right. Rebellion may be in the air. It already may have begun.

    Be such a rebellion successful, then? A return to the same flawed system that fostered this dark moment?

    Is there not an alternative in keeping with the vision of our Founding Fathers? Yes. If so, what? One of which few Americans have heard but about which this commentator has written for years; e.g., the novel Retribution Fever.

    “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” -Matthew 7:7

    1. Republicans got to be president for 12 years without winning the popular vote. We didn't rebel then. You not getting your way in an election is not a tyrannical situation. You're the one who wants to install a tyrant. And not just any tyrant, a fat orange moron of one. Fuck off.

      1. Haha. A bunch of whining from tony about yesterdays assholes and not a word to say about todays.

        God damn, you are so fucking progressive.

  29. Yang didn't learn a thing from what was done to Trump. If you are an outsider trying to run for President, they will try to destroy you. Previous political affiliation makes no difference.

  30. So he's found a way to get even fewer votes.

  31. The fallacy that "something must be done!" It goes like this: "something must be done; this is something; therefore this must be done." All of Yang's ideas (the "this") are riddled with unintended and disasters consequences. Yes, Andrew. We agree "something" must be done, but in your case, something *else* must be done.

  32. He basically burned every bridge back to elite society. He'll be regarded as an annoying vote stealing Ralph Nader knockoff or the second coming of Sinema at worst. He made an enemy with a party that sends its goons to harass people in bathrooms.

    I'd like to commend Yang for having a certain measure of principle, but when the guy who won the NY mayor race accused him and and a female candidate (Latina, if I'm not mistaken) of forming an alliance against "candidates of color", he only offered he mildest reply. As an Asian, I cannot see myself voting for this man, unless it strategically makes sense to screw the left.

    If you don't fight, people won't come to your cause.

    1. Has no you know what. You have to call out race baiters and he didn't. The discrimination by the left against achievement in the Asian american community is disgusting..as an italian american I'm used to it..if you push above your weight you have to be brought down to make other tribes feel better. for the left culture can't be spoken of...but it is why one group excels and others don't.

  33. He basically burned every bridge back to elite society. He'll be regarded as an annoying vote stealing Ralph Nader knockoff or the second coming of Sinema at worst. He made an enemy with a party that sends its goons to harass people in bathrooms.

    I'd like to commend Yang for having a certain measure of principle, but when the guy who won the NY mayor race accused him and and a female candidate (Latina, if I'm not mistaken) of forming an alliance against "candidates of color", he only offered he mildest reply. As an Asian, I cannot see myself voting for this man, unless it strategically makes sense to screw the left.

    If you don't fight, people won't come to your cause.

  34. More Nazi's trying to take over the USA.
    "Notes on the Future of Our Democracy".....
    Listen up d*psh*ts --- The USA is a Constitution Union of Republican States. UR Nazi (National Socialism) "Democracy" is EXACTLY what is destroying this country.

  35. UBI sounds like some fly by night credit card company...Oh, wait...It is.

  36. UBI might be a cheaper alternative to current government programs. I might support as a stop along the way to nothing. Problem is the proggies that want UBI do not want to end entitlement programs. They want another government tit to suckle.

  37. I'd like more interviews with libertarians who are in the trenches and not "cosmo" woke types Reason editors like to suck up to. Many interesting people in New Hampshire fighting the fight...and in other States at the local level.

    The issue at heart which Yang doesn't get is the corruption in govt/financial/media/big tech sector. The solution is to end the Fed and stop all deficit spending immediatly. All federal agencies created after 1930 should be closed. SS becomes means tested after you pull out what you personally put in with interest. Medicare and Medicaid are shut down and each State can create it's own healthcare "safety net"..the Fed gets out of 90% of what they have inserted themselves. All welfare programs at the Federal level are shut down. All public housing at the Federal level is shut down. And a reexamination of the Civil Rights Act section 2 and 8 is necessary to fix its flaws and for true liberty. Either govt can force sellers to sell no matter what (not just for specific segments) or not. And the Govt has no right to push one tribe ahead of another in the private sector.

    Oh and deport all Keynsian economists (especially Ivy League ones) to Russia where they all seem to have come from anyway.

Please to post comments