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

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

@js290 Ive seen this before, any particular reason to share it or just cause its related to the topic and interesting?

@freemo  it's interesting. Ppl should take it to see where they land. May surprise themselves.

@js290 Fair, and agreed. A lot of people I know have taken it or similar tests and were surprised with the results.

@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 @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 @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.

@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

@debbie @freemo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada

@shit @freemo they can fuck themselves! they arent really conservatives. also that party... do they think they can accomplish anything of value by democratic means?

@debbie
Huh? a progressive is anyone who wants to see reform, specifically if it is significant reform in many areas of government.

I wouldnt say that a conservative who wants to see reform towards conservatives values is somehow against conservatism.

Also conservative isnt a party, neither is progressiveism. They are ideologies that members of various parties can embody in different ways.

@shit

@freemo @shit aha well ok to me "progressive" means leftist. that is how we use that word here

@debbie
There are some people who use that word synonymous with "leftist". But in my expiernce the only people who do that tend to be the sort of leftists who tend to be ignorant of opposing values. Not saying your one of them at all, just tends to be the pattern. I usually find it a rather ignorant redefinition of the word that was in use much longer than that by people on both ends. It is a very recent trend, but I doubt it will become a very popular one world-wide.

@shit

@freemo @debbie @shit in the early 1990s, the conservatives in Romania were the communists.

@debbie @freemo they are a joke party. same as every other liberal canadian party

@debbie
As for american parties being able to get things done through democratic processes. I'd say both the democrat and republican parties have both completely lost any ability to represent democracy at this point. In both cases their primaries have non-democratic emergency hatches built into the rules that I'd say invalidates them both.

@shit

@LWFlouisa fair :)

@bigkafka I'd say there is some usefulness to the labels but ultimately you loose a lot of important nuance, especially if you lean on it too hard.