@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 @freemo  It's a scaling issue... https://twitter.com/GuruAnaerobic/status/1049267950581141504

@js290 @freemo well, libertarians see their ideal state as a confederation of communes. These communes can have any rules. This way you can actually belong to a libertarian socialist commune but still the commune itself will exist in a market-driven environment. So it is not exactly a separate ideology, also it's survivability is questionable at best

@sandfox @freemo  James Scott on the topic of "The Art of Not Being Governed" https://youtu.be/RNkkEU7EoOk

@js290 @freemo Is there a text version? I don't have time for 1,5 got long videos

@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.

@freemo @sandfox @js290 Unless they argument here is to tax poor people more? I'm surprised taxing the rich more was an aspect of disagreement.

S button not working.

@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 @sandfox But who gets to determine how luxurious the item is? In some countries water itself is a luxury.

@LWFlouisa
Luxury isnt related to how precious or rare something is. A luxury is something not critical to survival. Food, water, toilet paper, these would be 0% tax, jewelry of any kind, makeup, video games, these are all luxury items

@js290 @sandfox

@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 While I agree on having the rich pay more, I'm wondering why they'd call it a "flat rate". It seems like it contributes a bit of confusion.:P

@LWFlouisa
Its flat because you pay the same percentage no matter who you are. Its just people who "waste" their money more pay more.

@nerthos @js290 @sandfox

@lwflouisa @freemo @js290 @sandfox A flat rate as Freemo said is the same percentage. For example you set a 15% tax on every commercial transaction. Say a low income person makes $15000 a year and spends $10000, they'll be paying $1500 for full access to all state services and infrastructure. A high income person makes $15 million a year and spends/invests $10 million, they'll be contributing $1.5 million to the state for the same benefits a poor person paid $1500. However, to both the effort in paying the tax will be the same. Likely the contribution of the poor man won't cover the state expenditure for himself, but the rich man's contribution will cover that of many poor men that can't.

@nerthos @freemo @lwflouisa @sandfox  taxation implies the state as necessary...Free Audiobook: "The Market for Liberty" https://freekeene.com/2007/12/26/free-audiobook-the-market-for-liberty/

@js290 @freemo @lwflouisa @sandfox Pretty sure the argument was in the context of a state, not considering alternatives to it.

@nerthos @freemo @lwflouisa @sandfox Why keep propping up the state that benefit the elite? The state seems to primarily impede mobility in both directions. Former labor secretary Robert Reich correctly observed that FDR's New Deal smoothed out volatility in the market which ultimately created the middle class. Volatility is what allows for economic mobility. Removing volatility protected those who already got theirs and makes it harder for enterprising individual to possibly hit it big.

@js290 @freemo @lwflouisa @sandfox This is another argument entirely and one I'm not very interested in getting into right now.

@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
I dont think anything could be farther from the truth. They contribute a great deal to society, though some more than others. They are also the class that donates a larger percentage of their income to charities.

@nerthos @js290 @sandfox

@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.

@lwflouisa @freemo @js290 @sandfox Don't misread it, I'm not referring to a particular person as dumb, but rather the idea of profit=evil being dumb. Everyone has dumb ideas at some point and that doesn't necessarily make them dumb people.
Example: as a kid I was afraid of an elephant ambushing me in dark rooms, with the rationality that I couldn't physically stop or escape an elephant. It's retarded as an elephant can't just get inside a building in an urban area without anyone noticing, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot for thinking that at one point of my life.

@nerthos This was pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

@lwflouisa @freemo @sandfox  Ron Paul: "Inflation is a tax"... Paul Krugman: "Inflation is not theft" https://youtu.be/hx16a72j__8

@freemo @sandfox  https://twitter.com/Jaffer22915438/status/1049273823084912640