I do have a problem with them classifying stuff there coming from "hate crimes".

theodemocratic... only the gods get to vote?

It is a fusion of democracy with divine right

Such that democratic values are equivalent to religious values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy

Should be combined with Theonomous principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

"hate crime"
what that even means. just anti freedom of speech...

Since when are incels white supremacists? can anyone tell me when that happened because i really dont pay any attention to the whole incel thing

Direct democracy at a local level with representative democracy at the state level. Representatives are composed of a class called the Polis who gain there position through a minimum two years service to the State along with continued obligations alongside their responsibility.

The Polis in turn would be the main elective body of the federal level.

Populism is upheld through nationalist policies like Sphere of Popularity and Solidarity Economics

sounds nasty

you would need to abolish current media companies.
or they would have the power to manipulate peoples belives like right now.

most people are too stupid to understand politics

If you believe that, you need to start working to reduce democratic influence in the country.

Would it be any different if you had a King instead of a President??

would suck if it was something like George B. or Angela M. but rock if it was someone like Ron or Rand.

How does the philosophical underpinning of Theonomy differ from Sharia, @Dvir ?

Government by holy text seems pretty suspect unless you happen to have a nation made entirely of adherents to one exact interpretation of that holy text.

And heaven help anyone who comes along and feels differently.

Most of Heinlein's future history was based on the US becoming and then overcoming a theocracy in the early 21st century. Ironically the Latter Day Saints were part of the resistance because the theocracy was not THIER theocracy.

Let's talk my favorite subject. Health care. Is pure capitalism a good thing for health care?

As stated prior, @DrYuriMom , what do you mean when you say "pure capitalism"

The invisible hand. Market forces handle everything with little or no regulation.

No minimum wage

No tax structure to encourage some things and discourage others

No state enterprises

What stops people from banding together and making an organization that handles healthcare as a single payer or hybrid system?

People pay for it individually or it doesn't happen

If done individually by choice, nothing.

But if government does it, that's socialism, right?

Not necessarily no. You've read Hayek yes?

Socialism is explicitly the relegation of all resources to a "dictatorship of the proletariat", whatever form that may take

You could make the argument that an enforced monopoly is a sort of "sector socialism" I suppose, but there's no incompatibility with the government competing with the market

I think the only real exception here are things where you're going to inevitably have a monopoly anyway- a lot of infrastructural improvements work in this manner

If the gov't uses tax dollars then they are manipulating the market

Depends on what they do with those tax dollars

That's not pure capitalism

The point behind a state (IE the difference between an ancap and a libertarian) is that you have an organization that handles force

This is so that you have a singular, fair set of laws, and an expectation of enforcement. This exists due to market need

The more the government manipulates the market, the less pure it is. Hence what i was saying about a mix being needed. It sounds like we're not far apart.