> So, you not only think that there's a universal definition of left vs right in politics but also that it's all about one single problem? As I already explain

> So, you not only think that there's a universal definition of left vs right in politics but also that it's all about one single problem? As I already explained elsewhere, I do believe that but with the caveat that the universality loses some explanatory power, of course. So yes, about a single problem, but the one that manifests in many ways throughout all human societies. > I just think it's the most fair and just tax scheme. I don't really see why you see it that way. From what moral principle does that follow? I personally think that "most fair and just" tax scheme is a consumption tax on natural resources. > For example, I think you would prefer for a few of leading climate scientist to have more power over environmental policy than of people who don't believe in evolution, right? But this is power inequality, too. I think it depends. I certainly wouldn't grant them unlimited power without any accountability (which may be, for example, they have to openly submit their conclusions for public review). But when you think about accountability, then the actual power differential is not so clear cut. You can have hierarchies and yet power equality. For example, Linus is ostensibly an absolute dictator when it comes to Linux kernel development, yet he has the same power as everyone else by the virtue of the source being generally accessible. > Taxes are, in theoretically just world, should be a form of payment for government services. If you understand government in that limited way, as a service provider, then yes. But government can also be understood as an executor of agreement of how to redistribute some resources within the society. In that case it's perfectly natural to have redistribution from wealthier to poorer. Take for example insurance. Is it fair that people who got lucky gave out effectively more than people who didn't? It's not just a payment for a service, it's a redistribution scheme. > I can almost guarantee that we will end up arguing about what "personal freedom" really is We can go into specifics, it's no big deal. What I meant, broadly, was circumstances like e.g. great potato famine, where if the society as a whole has the resources to help the poor, but they are in the hands of very few who don't want to give them up. I think it's hard to argue, then, the rich minority doesn't infringe on the personal freedom of the poor majority. > democracy did not appear because of theoretical considerations of what is the best form of government: it evolved as a compromise between different parties who would've otherwise kill each other to determine who's right I agree with that. But also, the very idea is embodied in the moral principle of equality. > And our discussions about what is good and bad, in theory, have very little dent on reality I don't think so. Theoretical analysis of moral principles may lead to interesting inventions, like democracy. I don't think humans have democracy inborn as a concept; it's a cultural thing they invented.