A neoliberal is not a liberal. Google the term. — Noah Te Stroete

What happened in 1980 to bring about this change? Does this have something to do with Reagan and the Texans who got Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush elected? Would another term for this group of people be the Republican Right?

The rate of homeless deaths in the US is on the increase.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=BR&channel=fs&ei=TkxHXteBOPvG0PEPt5Si2Ao&q=rate+of+homeless+deaths&oq=rate+of+homeless+deaths&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l4.356100.361400..362500...0.2..0.200.1900.7j13j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0j0i131j0i273j0i22i30.K4747MBpt8k&ved=0ahUKEwjX4PzgttLnAhV7IzQIHTeKCKsQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

The cause of the rise in deaths, is not famine and a boarder view of the rise in deaths supports the notion that there are limits to growth.

The term “neoliberal” has more to do with conservatives’ hawkish stance on foreign policy. Even modern Democrats are largely neoliberal in their foreign policy. Clinton and Obama weren’t really that liberal except on social issues. However, Clinton signed the conservative welfare to work law, and Obama didn’t come out for gay marriage until Biden forced his hand. Both of them had Reaganomics tax policies.

I don’t know what group is responsible for the rise of neoliberalism. If you’re interested, you might want to research The Project for a New American Century. You’ll find some interesting information about neoliberalism if you Google that.

Also, if you’re in the middle class in the US, then you have also benefitted from neoliberalism. Dominating the world brings wealth back to the homeland, and the middle class benefits from this, maybe not nearly as much as the top earners and wealthiest, but they do benefit a lot. The world GDP per capita is around $10,000. Do you get more than this?

I agree with you; homelessness is on the rise and it is only going to get worse along with hunger, painful drug addictions, lots of suffering, and apathy among the rich who only find worth in charity if they get to put their name on it. But I can identify two serious problems we need to address. They are our undying, relentless and worse uncritical love of democracy and capitalism.

Can you give me a more detailed description of "Democracy", since the term often gets slightly misused.

As an example, if one wishes to point out "rabid Trump supporters", my understanding as far as political theory is concerned, is that this would be viewed as one of the "negative" aspects of Democracy, as in the sense that many "demagogues" who use strong appeals to emotions and "mob" mentalities or "group-think" over reason is one of the negative aspects of it; albeit a necessary ill.

This wouldn't solely be the case in regards to "Trump" and his supporters, so much as a part of human nature (such as is seen in the psychology surround "sports" riots and violence, for example) but regardless, it proves the point.

---

As an example, "direct democracy" would be anarchy or mob rule (there would be no legislators / parliment, judges, elected representatives, etc), perhaps not even any written or encodifed "laws" which is why no contemporary 1st world country is a direct democracy, nor was ever intended to be.

(Direct democracy briefly reared its ugly head in the French Reign of Terror, as a perfect demonstration of why it doesn't work, politics and candidates turned aside).

Oh yeah, I know of the The Project for a New American Century. Not a very democratic organization but with a lot of power to control the expense and use of our military.

I thought Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and Athens's democracy. He had the opportunity to escape and live elsewhere but he chose to respect the law and the decision for his death because without respect for their rules, a state cannot exist. Of course he could have avoided the whole mess by recanting what he said as Galileo did. Defending his right to say what he believes needs to be said, is a defense of freedom of speech and this becomes a defense of democracy.

I read several comments about Socrates's choice, written by what has to be young people, because they all seem to miss the point, that what is important is not the individual but everyone and the ideal. Sort of like Patrick Henry saying "give me liberty or give me death". It is the ideal and good of all that matters, and we must be willing to die for that. As a Muslim suicide bomber or any of the past martyrs gave their lives for a cause. Human sacrifice is the ultimate price to pay for the ideal and benefit of all. Socrates died for freedom of speech and his democracy as thousands of Americans died to defend their democracy, only all those deaths have been for nothing because we stop defending our democracy in the classroom.

As for the problem with capitalism, that is a lack of democracy. We have autocratic industry and therefore the evil of autocracy. We need to replace autocratic industry with the democratic model and put an end to those evils.

Democracy is rule by reason. Trump and his supporters are not about rule by reason, and it looks like the end of the democracy we defended in civil wars and two world wars. That is the result of no longer defending democracy in the classroom, and ignoring autocracy is the enemy of democracy and allowing it to control our economy and therefore everything else.

Democracy is a social order that respects human dignity and differences, and government is only one aspect of democracy. Only one aspect of democracy.

Henry said that upon his execution, not during the context of any legal or diplomatic setting;. context is important.

And of course, 'liberty', "freedom', and so on in any civilized, 1st world country are not absolute, and for good reason.

A rapist does not have the "freedom" to rape women, nor a slave owner have the 'freedom' to own Africans as property, nor does one have a right to yell "fire" in a movie theater, and call it "free speech". Nor is there any right at all to 'riot' as opposed to peaceably assemble, and so on and so on.

The same with idiots who think that "free speech" mean that a private individual or employer doesn't have a 'right' or delegation' to decide its own rules within the limits of the law, regardless of what they want to argue about not respecting "free speech" in principle.

A private business, for example does indeed have a legal right to have a legal right to remove people at its own discretions and common sense, regardless of ultimately what one thinks about whether or not they "should" do it - sans a person proving it was done discriminatorily in a way recognized such by the law, such as racial. (For example, a business would have every right to personally decide to remove an individual for promoting Neo-Nazi propaganda, even if technically what they were doing was legally protected, as far as the law goes, the business would likewise have every right to not want to be associated with it, and would not be obligated by law to provide them a free platform to do so at their own expense).

Since the vast majority of these "free speech" arguments are predicated on complete legal ignorance or apathy on what "free speech" actually is, in practice, as far as the history of law and legal precedents and interpretations, and ultimately they could care less about the "constitution" to begin with, and would still be arguing for it simply because they "want to", Constitution or otherwise, since it's predicated on mob psychology and irrationality, rather than so much as having read a single book on the subject or care enough about it to to begin with.

I think the word "freedom" is problematic especially in a population that does not strongly believe a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I prefer the word "liberty" because it has a stronger connection with morality. People with liberty are the least free because they understand the responsibility of having good moral judgement. They agree with Cicero and understand the consequences of their actions and words are what they are and can not be changed by sacrificing animals, burning candles or saying prayers.

As Socrates argued about education being essential to democracy, and Jefferson devoted his life to having a well educated public, because this is how to have a strong and united republic, we need to pay much more attention to what education has to do with good moral judgment and what that has to do with a culture that does not need to function like a police state to keep people safe. We might change our focus from education for technology to a focus on history and our environments.

PS We respect everyone because we are respectful people.