For anyone out there who considers themselves a progressive I'm curious, do you see yourself as a conservative, liberal, or moderate who happens to also be #progressive?

@freemo progressive conservative? lol wut

@debbie I know about a dozen progressive conservatives personally, about as many progressive liberals.

@freemo  https://www.politicalcompass.org/

@js290 @freemo I don't like this political compass. It has at least one false dichotomy (left-right)

@js290 @freemo I once saw something like this. Much more accurate

@sandfox @freemo   social freedoms are not orthogonal to economic freedoms

@js290 @freemo true because for example economic freedoms make you more independent and grant you some social freedoms almost automatically (but not the other way around). Also this "practical" spectrum should not be so symmetrical because for the reason above, left wing goes authoritarian much earlier and easier

Nevertheless this compass has much less paradoxes. It explains why both extremes of the spectrum feel like exactly same grade of shit by placing commies and nazis together. It also lacks such strange paradox as "socialist libertarian"

@sandfox @freemo Libertarian Socialism? Sheldon Richman | @SheldonRichman@twitter.com https://c4ss.org/content/32398

@js290 @freemo I understand that there may be libertarian socialists but their faith is irrational. Any non-market economy will require a center of power which will be essentially a form of government. And as any socialist state on practice shows us, it will be quite oppressive

@sandfox I think that depends on what we mean by socialist. If by socialist you mean "people are taxed and that money is used to help the whole of the community" then no, i dont see the sort of oppression your talking about. Building a road system off taxes, or an educational system is not going to lead to oppression itself.

Me personally i have a bit more of a subtler definition i use to distinguish communist, socialist, and moderate lefts (economic left not social left).

A communism, for me, would be a country that effectively or literally has 100% tax rate. All money from everyone is used equally and redistributed equally.

A socialist country is one that focuses on redistribution of wealth but not at a 100% rate. Basically any country that doesnt employ a flat-tax (more income means a higher tax %) would be socialist.

A economic-left position that is neither of those is possible and would look like some sort of a flat-tax situation, and may even be at a high rate, where those taxes are used to better everyone. Since this isnt a redistribution of wealth it isnt socialist even though it can take a very left-looking form. Of course this can also apply to the economic-right the difference would jsut be where and how that money is spent

@js290

@freemo @js290 @sandfox I would be inherently against taxing everyone 100%. There are people that are simply to poor to pay for it.


What there would need to be is the rich being taxed the most, as they're the ones that can actually pay for services.


This will become more important, as American becomes more divided between rich and poor, with the poor unable to finance anything.

@LWFlouisa
I disagree a rich person is no more able to pay a 100% rate than a poor person. In both cases they are left with nothing

@js290 @sandfox

@freemo @sandfox @js290 I do agree with that, a 100% tax rate would be silly. I just mean rich people should be taxed higher than poor people.

@LWFlouisa
I entierly disagree. Redistribution of wealth isnt the answer. I prefer doing away with income tax and relying on a flat sales tax with percentages varying depending on how much of a luxury the item is.

@sandfox @js290

@freemo @js290 @lwflouisa @sandfox This. A flat tax means that the rich, buying much more expensive products and in higher quantities, would be contributing an order of magnitude more money than the poor, who just don't spend as much money. However it'll be fair as it'll be the same contribution in regards to total wealth for each person, and if someone just wants to save, they can avoid spending.
Differential taxes depending on wealth simply justifies the rich trying to avoid taxes however they can as they rightfully see the higher tax rates they're subject to as extremely unjust, being charged simply because their ancestors worked hard for their children to live better lives.
Also differential tax rates screw with social mobility as making more money starts being undesirable at a certain point.

@nerthos @freemo @js290 @sandfox In either case, the millionaire and billionaire class in the US contribute nothing to society, they just live off of poor people's work.

@lwflouisa @freemo @js290 @sandfox That's a ridiculous idea. They don't contribute manual labour, but they fund a lot of enterprises and pay the wages of an inordinate number of employees. If they witheld their capital from the market, you'd see just how much their money means to the economy as a big portion of the country would instantly have no jobs. Not to mention they contribute millions of dollars in taxes yearly.
You "live off other's work" if you capture and enslave those people and don't pay them anything, making them work resources you didn't pay to acquire. If you invest in a business and pay for the resources consumed in running that business and hire employees to work that enterprise in exchange of a wage you're doing the opposite of living off other people's work, you're providing those people jobs.
The idea that making a profit is wrong is childish and dumb. Even people that run no business and simply place all their money in a bank and live off interest are providing jobs, because for those interests to happen, the money placed in the bank is used by the bank as a proxy for commerce and investment.

@nerthos @freemo @js290 @sandfox I can't take you seriously if you're referring to anyone as dumb.