If I may be permitted to have a go at answering your questions, the more dysfunctional societies tend to be those within which extremes of economic inequality are tolerated, and the USA is an example. For the relevant research, see the bestselling publications of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.
Unfortunately, the neoliberal economic policies pursued by Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, Blair and others, which are - to a greater or lesser degree - based on the macroeconomic theories of Hayek and Friedman, have exacerbated economic inequality, as noted by authors like Ha Joon Chang, Manfred Steger, and David Harvey.
So the solution is to regulate capitalism a little more, in order to avoid events like 2008 and the opening of fractures and fissures within our society that are illustrated by the current emphasis on divisive forms of identity politics.
As for a political system, I have to be more utopian here and suggest that a system known as deliberative democracy is preferable to the one that we have, as it is more empirically grounded and less open to manipulation by powerful interest groups. For more on that (and how it has been shown to work on a smaller scale), see Paul Verhaeghe’s Says Who? The Struggle for Authority in a Market Based Society.
Incidentally, the reason for the book references is because I was once required to teach a course from scratch that entailed looking at how ethical the macroeconomic systems of capitalism and socialism actually are.
After several years of extensive reading in the territory of recent economic history, in terms of my own perspective, I have ended up coming down on the side of a restrained form of capitalism.
However, I now refrain from voting as I do not consider the system we have to be fit for purpose. The only reason I would vote now is to prevent an extremist party from taking power. Unfortunately, the Republican Party at present seems to be heading in that direction and so if I lived in the USA, I would have voted for the Democrats.
You’re arguing that a POTUS, Once elected, can do whatever they like. That’s despotism.
Perhaps you do need a revolution, one that takes power away from your elites and hands it to the proletariat who can then rewrite your constitution or even abolish it. I am no expert but what relevance does a document from the 1780s have to todays world.
Actually replaced it yesterday with Peter Krotopkin "The conquest of bread" as recommended by Mr Genie.You still have Das Kapital by your bedside table don't you mate ;-)
I am not and have not argued that at all.You’re arguing that a POTUS, Once elected, can do whatever they like. That’s despotism.
I am not and have not argued that at all.
I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.
I am not aware of Bigga's thought on the matter.Channelling Bigga? Or just wishing Trump had won?
Rather than attacking the Capitol at the instigation of a mad fascist.
So, Twitter should just allow him to say whatever he wants on their platform, simply because he's the elected President?I am not and have not argued that at all.
I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.
Which are fair points.In general, I agree. However has anyone argued that it is a good thing for corporations to control debate? Anyone want to claim that as their position would get hammered, although some people whine when McDonalds start encouraging more healthy options!
Twitter/Facebook etc were set up privately and are private companies, albeit ones which can influence people more than they might realise. No-one has a rival platform that they are willing to fight for the marketplace, so they have dominance.
Without having looked into it, I assumed that Twitter used it's banning policy based on whether actions were likely to make it a target for legal proceedings - which would make its actions dependent on current laws. I would expect that most people would deem that better than allowing incitement in society.
What is the solution? Forcible nationalisation would just put them under a different editorial control to be argued about. A nationally owned rival would need a lot of backing to establish, and some would avoid anything run by a govt.