Here's another idea. I have a hypothesis which could be tested. Suppose you have an app or some kind of a social media add-on idea in which anybody could report any other citizen that they believe is a gun risk. So here's the idea. An app that anybody can report anyone they think is a gun risk. Now if you report your personal enemy and there's only one of you and it's just one report, well the app just lets it sit there and it doesn't do anything because you don't want people just reporting people they don't like. But suppose your app shows that the mother reported the son, the friend and the girlfriend have all used the app to report him and it's all confidential. Then it starts beeping and then the government starts asking questions. Holy shoot, we've got three people who are confidential. So the girlfriend can say I didn't report you. The mother can say I don't know what you're talking about. They just use their app and then it starts gathering other information. Maybe once somebody has risen up the line then maybe law enforcement or other people start seeing their social media posts and then you're looking at their social media posts.

You see that they've got somebody saying that's a terrible idea. I'm open to why it's a terrible idea by the way. You could, there's plenty of room for reasons. You know you don't have much room in your comments but just make a reference to the category of reasons. False negatives. There would be false negatives but they would be rare because you'd need multiple people from different positions coming in and reporting somebody. And it would not automatically mean that you lose your guns. So it wouldn't mean that. It would just mean that you've been flagged.

So you're way off on your last three ideas. If you don't like those ideas listen to this one. It's about health care. I'm trying to understand, and there might be a reason for this by the way, but I'm trying to understand why there can't be two separate healthcare tracks in this country. One that's a single-payer type of situation but only the people who sign up for it. And if they sign up for it they're also the only ones who can ever be taxed to pay for it now or in the future. And then the separate one that is completely private, you know sort of like the current systems, but you can never get the benefits of being in the other one. So you can switch sides anytime you want and then things would be adjusted or prorated whatever. But they would be competing plans. The country is so big that half of the country would account for bigger than a regular country, right?

So why are we arguing about which way it should be? Isn't that argument what dumb people do? If you can test it why don't you just do it? What would stop people from volunteering to be in the system? There was also competing against the, somebody's calling me a socialist. Is it a socialist system to have two competing systems that are both public and you can freely go between them? Is that what socialism looks like to you? Because that looks like pretty much not socialism to me. Some of you are saying yes yes yes. I know a lot of my followers here have a sort of a reflexive feeling about the socialism. But if socialism is optional I don't know if that makes it socialism. You know if you personally never have to pay for somebody else's choice is that really socialism? That's a weird definition of it.

You saying anti-firewall flag all their enemies. If there was an app that could point out crazy gun people I think there would actually be very little of that. But here's the thing. Those of you who are saying that my app idea is terrible, you are not thinking right independent of whether the idea is terrible. Because it could be tested. Anything that can be tested small should be tested. There's very little risk. If you build this app and let's say all bad people use it and report all the wrong people and it causes some problems, well you just cancel it like a month into it. It's like well we tried it for a month and if it was used to make a bunch of false claims, can't tell what's real, what isn't, so we'll stop using it. That's it.

If you have a problem this big you should be trying a whole bunch of stuff, see what you learn from that, what works, what doesn't. It could be the building app simply teaches you about something else that does work and then you pivot to that. But those of you who are saying that it's a terrible idea and therefore should not be tried don't understand how anything works. Everything that works big got tried small. So if you're not trying stuff small you're not really part of the reason debate on anything.

All right yeah there could be penalties for abuses. We can figure it out as we go. But doing nothing, doing nothing would certainly not make sense.

Now if you were, so do you notice here that for each of my ideas there seemed to be people who hate them. The people who are yelling socialism about any of these ideas are probably the least credible people in the conversation. Because if all you're doing is labeling it with the first word that comes to mind you're not really engaging in the idea. You're just saying socialism, socialism. That's more like Tourette's syndrome you know. Sort of yeah. If every idea for how to reorganize or organize better the society we live in, if your first response to all of it is socialism, socialism, then you're not really part of the serious discussion. You go and try first lol on what is. All right that's a ridiculous comment.