5 ms·

When you suggest that reducing taxes and eliminating regulations might hurt the most vulnerable, they have two responses: 1) no way, it would only help them bec

When you suggest that reducing taxes and eliminating regulations might hurt the most vulnerable, they have two responses: 1) no way, it would only help them because the market is perfect!, 2) who cares? the poor need to get a job! People like neoliberalism for the same reason they like fascism: people want to believe in a utopia that mirrors their values. Belief is a hell of a drug.

alfor 4y ago
We know there are problem on both sides: Too big and powerful government = corruption and inefficiencies Too big and powerful corporation = corruption and inefficiencies I prefer going more toward the free market as corporation are in competition and that force some accountability that we don’t see in the government. Keep the government small and nimble, mostly as a control mechanism for corporation that become corrupt and monopolistic. Read Atlas Shrugged if you want to see the opposite of your point of view.
- throwaway787544 4y ago
  Corporations are accountable to their bank statements and Governments are accountable to people. Except when the opposite is true. The real world is complicated and generalizations don't pan out. Neither do philosophies rooted on generalizations.
baisq 4y ago
Lower taxes is not a utopia, it's perfectly feasible, unless you think that you owe something to the poor just for existing.
- mcv 4y ago
  Your taxes could go to help the poor, or to police them. Both cost money.
- throwaway787544 4y ago
  So you're a #2 :)
- stuaxo 4y ago
  Taxes aren't just about "the poor". Decent infrastructure benefits everyone. People that aren't poor participate in the economy and help business. I shouldn't have to explain it only money terms, but in that way it makes sense. Why should society pay more to keep people poor, the numbers don't add up. Unless it's not about the money at all but about punishing people?
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    It's about spending less money. When you have a whip of "you will be homeless and starve", people will accept odious salaries and work conditions much more easily.
- ubercore 4y ago
  I don't think I owe the poor anything for existing, I think they should be taken care of as fellow humans. We live in a society, we should take care of each other.
  - baisq 4y ago
    And that's where I disagree. It's not "they" taking care of the poor, it's you and I with money that they take from us whether we like it or not.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
      You owe much of what you are to the society that supports you. It is a fantasy that anyone living in a society achieved their successes in a vacuum.
    - ubercore 4y ago
      I'm happy for the money to be taken from me to help take care of people that, for whatever reason, find themselves in an awful situation against their will.
    - AstralStorm 4y ago
      And you don't like it why? You're probably just not paid enough to maintain current lifestyle should you pay some "for the poor", is that correct? So, ultimately, it's a decision of some boss somewhere?
- it_citizen 4y ago
  I don't think you owe the poor directly. But you probably owe a fair chunk of your success to society (fundamental research, education, health, infrastructure). Then society decide how to spend that money. I might not like how that money will be spend but the game seems fair.
- axiomsEnd 4y ago
  If Amazon workers collect food stamps, it means Jeff Bezos "just existing" owe them quite a lot of money. Also, bussiness and innovation requieres good infrastructure. For some reason most tech startups do not start in tax heavens like Somalia, but in highly developed countries.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Why should poor people not come into your house and simply take your things? If you don't care about them, then why should they care about you?
- jhgb 4y ago
  Well of course they're feasible. The Soviet Union was feasible. Ancient Mesopotamian societies were feasible. The Aztec Empire was feasible. Feasibility is the lowest bar for picking a solution. All it means is that it's not physically impossible to implement it.
- tayistay 4y ago
  You do owe them to some extent, because if you deprive them enough, they will revolt, which will be much more disruptive to your life than higher taxes.
- mdpye 4y ago
  It's not "for existing". Taken collectively, their work underpins the conditions for the lives of those better off. Remove "the poor" from the equation, and it's likely your quality of life would collapse. The market as operating doesn't recognise that in their remuneration because negatives are easy to externalise, and then roll down hill.
mordae 4y ago
Most people don't really think about the world they live in. They listen to the radio, watch TV and don't see any hidden agenda. They just simply learn to parrot what they hear. Then ask them, framing the question in a familiar way, and they just parrot back. LOL. Sounds like GPT. :-)
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Who likes fascism?! Fascism must be the least popular extremist ideology in 2022. I have never heard anyone in my life talk about how it might be a good idea, or how "real fascism hasn't been tried yet". Hell I have barely even seen it on the internet. As far as I can tell it exists today only as an epithet, but happy to be proved wrong.
- tayistay 4y ago
  Fascism is authoritarian ultra-nationalism. Putin’s Russia fits easily. Various European leaders and parties fit to differing extents. Trump fits. Just like dictators call themselves presidents, fascists call themselves other things.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    I covered this in the OP: As far as I can tell it exists today only as an epithet
    - orwin 4y ago
      Fascism is an extreme Bonapartism. It is authoritarian, and anti-republican. Anti-republicanism in practice: removing power from courts (especially supranational organs like the US supreme court), consolidating media power (aka removing or pushing to the fringe dissident media) and removing various transparency laws (in France, stuff like making sure the campaign accounting is public, or letting the public know the complete estate?(patrimoine) of the presidential candidates). You can in practice have a fascist semi-democracy or oligarchy. Another key point is that unlike Bonapartism, and like Nazism and Stalinism, Fascism don't use plebiscite that much, historically only at the start, to help consolidate its power. This make it quite different from Gaullism (which is a very moderate Bonapartism). While Fascism, unlike Nazism, is not expansionist, it still have racist undertone and can use the hierarchy of races to justify colonialism and neo-colonialism, and appartheid. Like other far-right ideologies, their myth can be resumed like this: "We (our ethnical/religious/cultural/national group) are the best in the world. But right now, we aren't at our rightful place. This is because these external groups (The French/the English/the Russians/the Chinese) are preventing us to reach it, aided by our internal enemies(The Gypsys/the Jews/the communists/the anarchists/the libs) that we have to render inoffensive by any mean." I do see some fascists nowadays, but this is true that they are less anti-republican than they used to be 80 years ago, so a new denomination might be necessary? Unless anti-republicanism is just an inheritance from Bonaparte and not as central as i thought?
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
It's amazing how such a large proportion of our society becomes incapable of thinking critically about policy and incentives when the policy in question is the product of a legislature. Regulations just stupid rules made up by stupid humans. They're not special. They're no more likely to be a net good or bad for the groups they apply to than some random policy that comes down from corporate. Every regulation that removes a rung from the ladder and increases inequality sails under the flag of some noble goal. And useful idiots take that shit hook line and sinker. If prosperity was as simple as playing regulatory whack-a-mole on every bad thing we see we'd be a hell of a lot more prosperous.
raverbashing 4y ago
The debate about "lower/higher taxes" is a such a loaded discussion from both sides it's not even funny Those more on the left treat it as a holy grail as if government spending wasn't historically very inefficient and prone to corruption. Those more on the right think all the society that was built around them was free and came out of nothing. I certainly don't like paying taxes but they're needed. I don't like goverment "intervention" but no free market is going to build a road in front of my house, establish a government with fiscal/monetary policy (and a currency - and no, no cryptocrap will solve this) and build relations with other countries. And in fact old capitalists seemed much more society focused: they built railways, universities, etc. Instead of yet another web app
- throwaway787544 4y ago
  It's because we're a society of plenty now. Nobody thinks they need taxes if they already have a road. And a lot of people are just ignorant and don't comprehend the compounding effects of societal inequality.

alfor 4y ago

We know there are problem on both sides: Too big and powerful government = corruption and inefficiencies Too big and powerful corporation = corruption and inefficiencies I prefer going more toward the free market as corporation are in competition and that force some accountability that we don’t see in the government. Keep the government small and nimble, mostly as a control mechanism for corporation that become corrupt and monopolistic. Read Atlas Shrugged if you want to see the opposite of your point of view.

throwaway787544 4y ago
Corporations are accountable to their bank statements and Governments are accountable to people. Except when the opposite is true. The real world is complicated and generalizations don't pan out. Neither do philosophies rooted on generalizations.

baisq 4y ago

Lower taxes is not a utopia, it's perfectly feasible, unless you think that you owe something to the poor just for existing.

mcv 4y ago
Your taxes could go to help the poor, or to police them. Both cost money.
throwaway787544 4y ago
So you're a #2 :)
stuaxo 4y ago
Taxes aren't just about "the poor". Decent infrastructure benefits everyone. People that aren't poor participate in the economy and help business. I shouldn't have to explain it only money terms, but in that way it makes sense. Why should society pay more to keep people poor, the numbers don't add up. Unless it's not about the money at all but about punishing people?
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  It's about spending less money. When you have a whip of "you will be homeless and starve", people will accept odious salaries and work conditions much more easily.
ubercore 4y ago
I don't think I owe the poor anything for existing, I think they should be taken care of as fellow humans. We live in a society, we should take care of each other.
- baisq 4y ago
  And that's where I disagree. It's not "they" taking care of the poor, it's you and I with money that they take from us whether we like it or not.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    You owe much of what you are to the society that supports you. It is a fantasy that anyone living in a society achieved their successes in a vacuum.
  - ubercore 4y ago
    I'm happy for the money to be taken from me to help take care of people that, for whatever reason, find themselves in an awful situation against their will.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    And you don't like it why? You're probably just not paid enough to maintain current lifestyle should you pay some "for the poor", is that correct? So, ultimately, it's a decision of some boss somewhere?
it_citizen 4y ago
I don't think you owe the poor directly. But you probably owe a fair chunk of your success to society (fundamental research, education, health, infrastructure). Then society decide how to spend that money. I might not like how that money will be spend but the game seems fair.
axiomsEnd 4y ago
If Amazon workers collect food stamps, it means Jeff Bezos "just existing" owe them quite a lot of money. Also, bussiness and innovation requieres good infrastructure. For some reason most tech startups do not start in tax heavens like Somalia, but in highly developed countries.
nicoburns 4y ago
Why should poor people not come into your house and simply take your things? If you don't care about them, then why should they care about you?
jhgb 4y ago
Well of course they're feasible. The Soviet Union was feasible. Ancient Mesopotamian societies were feasible. The Aztec Empire was feasible. Feasibility is the lowest bar for picking a solution. All it means is that it's not physically impossible to implement it.
tayistay 4y ago
You do owe them to some extent, because if you deprive them enough, they will revolt, which will be much more disruptive to your life than higher taxes.
mdpye 4y ago
It's not "for existing". Taken collectively, their work underpins the conditions for the lives of those better off. Remove "the poor" from the equation, and it's likely your quality of life would collapse. The market as operating doesn't recognise that in their remuneration because negatives are easy to externalise, and then roll down hill.

mordae 4y ago

Most people don't really think about the world they live in. They listen to the radio, watch TV and don't see any hidden agenda. They just simply learn to parrot what they hear. Then ask them, framing the question in a familiar way, and they just parrot back. LOL. Sounds like GPT. :-)

LAC-Tech 4y ago

Who likes fascism?! Fascism must be the least popular extremist ideology in 2022. I have never heard anyone in my life talk about how it might be a good idea, or how "real fascism hasn't been tried yet". Hell I have barely even seen it on the internet. As far as I can tell it exists today only as an epithet, but happy to be proved wrong.

tayistay 4y ago
Fascism is authoritarian ultra-nationalism. Putin’s Russia fits easily. Various European leaders and parties fit to differing extents. Trump fits. Just like dictators call themselves presidents, fascists call themselves other things.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  I covered this in the OP: As far as I can tell it exists today only as an epithet
  - orwin 4y ago
    Fascism is an extreme Bonapartism. It is authoritarian, and anti-republican. Anti-republicanism in practice: removing power from courts (especially supranational organs like the US supreme court), consolidating media power (aka removing or pushing to the fringe dissident media) and removing various transparency laws (in France, stuff like making sure the campaign accounting is public, or letting the public know the complete estate?(patrimoine) of the presidential candidates). You can in practice have a fascist semi-democracy or oligarchy. Another key point is that unlike Bonapartism, and like Nazism and Stalinism, Fascism don't use plebiscite that much, historically only at the start, to help consolidate its power. This make it quite different from Gaullism (which is a very moderate Bonapartism). While Fascism, unlike Nazism, is not expansionist, it still have racist undertone and can use the hierarchy of races to justify colonialism and neo-colonialism, and appartheid. Like other far-right ideologies, their myth can be resumed like this: "We (our ethnical/religious/cultural/national group) are the best in the world. But right now, we aren't at our rightful place. This is because these external groups (The French/the English/the Russians/the Chinese) are preventing us to reach it, aided by our internal enemies(The Gypsys/the Jews/the communists/the anarchists/the libs) that we have to render inoffensive by any mean." I do see some fascists nowadays, but this is true that they are less anti-republican than they used to be 80 years ago, so a new denomination might be necessary? Unless anti-republicanism is just an inheritance from Bonaparte and not as central as i thought?

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

It's amazing how such a large proportion of our society becomes incapable of thinking critically about policy and incentives when the policy in question is the product of a legislature. Regulations just stupid rules made up by stupid humans. They're not special. They're no more likely to be a net good or bad for the groups they apply to than some random policy that comes down from corporate. Every regulation that removes a rung from the ladder and increases inequality sails under the flag of some noble goal. And useful idiots take that shit hook line and sinker. If prosperity was as simple as playing regulatory whack-a-mole on every bad thing we see we'd be a hell of a lot more prosperous.

raverbashing 4y ago

The debate about "lower/higher taxes" is a such a loaded discussion from both sides it's not even funny Those more on the left treat it as a holy grail as if government spending wasn't historically very inefficient and prone to corruption. Those more on the right think all the society that was built around them was free and came out of nothing. I certainly don't like paying taxes but they're needed. I don't like goverment "intervention" but no free market is going to build a road in front of my house, establish a government with fiscal/monetary policy (and a currency - and no, no cryptocrap will solve this) and build relations with other countries. And in fact old capitalists seemed much more society focused: they built railways, universities, etc. Instead of yet another web app

throwaway787544 4y ago
It's because we're a society of plenty now. Nobody thinks they need taxes if they already have a road. And a lot of people are just ignorant and don't comprehend the compounding effects of societal inequality.