mindhog @mindhog@liberdon.com

This!

https://reason.com/2020/02/08/instead-of-removing-trump-from-power-remove-power-from-the-presidency/

To frame Trump's impeachment proceedings in terms of whether he is guilty or innocent of some offense is to miss the point.
The impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal one. The House impeached him for political reasons and the Senate will almost certainly acquit him for political reasons.

Classic case of "unintended consequences:" plastic recycling.
This was forced upon us by environmentalists, even before the infrastructure was in place, under the assumption that it was viable.
But apparently it was not very profitable in the US so we shipped most of the plastic off to China where a lot of it got dumped into the ocean or burned into the atmosphere.
Turns out we'd be better off putting it into landfills:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/07/15/why_its_probably_better_for_the_planet_to_throw_plastic_in_the_trash.html

Debate on Capitalism vs Socialism: https://youtu.be/szW61MGb-mI?t=34m30s

Econtalk on Free Market Healthcare:
https://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/

What I find interesting is that so many of the people who favor drastic, intentional intervention in the sphere of one of these complex systems (economics) are terrified by the prospect of even unintentional effects of human activity in the others.

The sciences of economics, ecology and climatology have a lot in common. These are studies of complex systems where it is difficult (if not impossible) to perform controlled experiments. They also all have a very problematic political component. Differing political factions are heavily invested in particular hypotheses that are not clearly provable.

Among other things, this would decriminalize and deschedule cannabis.

The US House Judiciary Committee just approved the "Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act"

The primary difference between the two is one of freedom: in Socialism, you are the owner by virtue of being a member of a group (typically the entire nation). In Capitalism, you must buy into ownership and likewise, you have the option to sell your equity when you believe it to be to your benefit to do so.

Capitalism too relies on the state as a defender of contract. This is not necessarily the case, we can envision private, decentralized systems that provide the same service.
But, likewise, for Socialism we can envision modes of more direct ownership that don't involve the state as an intermediary.

In particular, both allow for collective ownership: Capitalism through partnerships and incorporation, Socialism through indirect ownership by the people through the stewardship of the state.

Strictly speaking, both S and C are economic systems, and in many respects they're not very different from one another.

This leads to statements like "Socialism was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the 20th century." Which invariably leads to the response "Oh yeah? Well how many people have died as a result of Capitalism?"

I think part of the problem in modern political discourse is that we use the words Capitalism and Socialism in an overly broad sense.