π³π±
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?
@debbie I know about a dozen progressive conservatives personally, about as many progressive liberals.
@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"
@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
CE for length.
@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
CE for length.
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.
CE for length.
@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
CE for length.
@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.
CE for length.
@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
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.
@LWFlouisa
Its flat because you pay the same percentage no matter who you are. Its just people who "waste" their money more pay more.
@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.
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.
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.
