The Fallacy of Centrism

[Forsher]

"I don't think corporations should have more power. I just happen to support policies that will - 100% guaranteed - increase corporate control over every sphere of human life."

This is what I mean by centrists determine their politics from their ethics and thus aren't really concerned about ideological consistency.

In comparison, libertarians, most ideologies, determine their ethics from their politics. As long as a policy is consistent with the ideology, it's a good thing to advance... even if it's obvious that the actual effects of the policy would be otherwise. The concern isn't whether the person actually believes the result is consistent as long as the action is.

Now, does this implicitly require all centrists to be consequentialists? Probably? I don't see how it does not myself, anyway...

[Ancaplstan]

I edited the post.

I will put it to you very simply, as you seem to not understand.

What spending needs to be reduced in order for tax cuts?
Defense, education, healthcare?

All of them

[Ancaplstan]

There are still ways people can make money, tax cuts also help reduce inflation.

This isn't true, tax cuts (provided all else being equal) actually have the opposite effect, since more money in pockets encourages more spending, thus higher aggregate demand --> inflation.

As if governments does not spend the taxed money, increasing the demand.

[Ancaplstan]

Cutting taxpayer-funded public services and letting people buy basic services with their own money has worked out so well for countries that have tried it, that some commentators want to expand this model of privatisation further!

American healthcare has not been even remotely free-market ever since 1960s: https://mises.org/wire/how-government-r ... -expensive

[Neu California]

Cutting taxpayer-funded public services and letting people buy basic services with their own money has worked out so well for countries that have tried it, that some commentators want to expand this model of privatisation further!

American healthcare has not been even remotely free-market ever since 1960s: https://mises.org/wire/how-government-r ... -expensive

And fully government run healthcare has better results for far less money than the American Frankenstein system: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/public ... ctive-2019

[EuroStralia]

American healthcare has not been even remotely free-market ever since 1960s: https://mises.org/wire/how-government-r ... -expensive

And fully government run healthcare has better results for far less money than the American Frankenstein system: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/public ... ctive-2019

That money comes from high tax rates.

[Ancaplstan]

Libertarians aren't corporatists.

What do you think will happen when corporations are empowered at the expense of the state? They will come together and work as benevolent overlords of the people? Lmao.

This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is empowered "at the expense of the state". No firm will be allowed to imprison anyone for a few gramms of grass in their pocket. Just like nobody will be allowed to steal half of your income without your consent. Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market.

[EuroStralia]

What do you think will happen when corporations are empowered at the expense of the state? They will come together and work as benevolent overlords of the people? Lmao.

Just like nobody will be allowed to steal half of your income without your consent.

Expect the government.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

All of them

I mean the United States is basically an island full of natural resources, so maybe they can get this sort of model to work.

I happen to live in a country with an actively-contested border against a hostile neighbour, which has nothing to offer the world market except our highly skilled workforce and advanced technology. We cannot afford to cut spending on defence or education.

As if governments does not spend the taxed money, increasing the demand.

Taxation and public expenditure are related not not necessarily identical topics. In fact, high taxation is often a sign of a well-functioning democracy - tinpot dictators and populists are much less averse to cutting taxes and paying for things with debt.

That money comes from high tax rates.

Yep. When you have a system that charges taxpayers $5,000 a year in taxes and delivers results that are just superior to the other system which charges customers $11,000 a year in insurance premiums and out-of-pocket fees, the first system is just objectively more efficient than the second system.

This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is empowered "at the expense of the state". No firm will be allowed to imprison anyone for a few gramms of grass in their pocket. Just like nobody will be allowed to steal half of your income without your consent. Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market.

ahahahahaha

[Neu California]

And fully government run healthcare has better results for far less money than the American Frankenstein system: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/public ... ctive-2019

That money comes from high tax rates.

And if high tax rates fund programs that create high quality of life for the people living there, I fail to see the problem.

[EuroStralia]

That money comes from high tax rates.

And if high tax rates fund programs that create high quality of life for the people living there, I fail to see the problem.

High tax rates are a burden on ordinary people, the ends don't justify the means.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

High tax rates are a burden on ordinary people, the ends don't justify the means.

High private healthcare costs are also a burden on ordinary people. I don't see your point.

[EuroStralia]

High tax rates are a burden on ordinary people, the ends don't justify the means.

High private healthcare costs are also a burden on ordinary people. I don't see your point.

That doesn't mean we should raise tax rates.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

That doesn't mean we should raise tax rates.

If the choice is $11,000 in private healthcare costs or $5,000 in taxes for the national insurance I'll happily take the cheaper option.

[Neu California]

And if high tax rates fund programs that create high quality of life for the people living there, I fail to see the problem.

High tax rates are a burden on ordinary people, the ends don't justify the means.

Not if they're distributed progressively, so that the rich pay more of their income (which they can afford to pay without much burden) than the poor (who losing even a small chunk of their income can cause an undue burden), which is why no developed county, to my knowledge, has a flat tax rate.

[EuroStralia]

High tax rates are a burden on ordinary people, the ends don't justify the means.

Not if they're distributed progressively, so that the rich pay more of their income (which they can afford to pay without much burden) than the poor (who losing even a small chunk of their income can cause an undue burden), which is why no developed county, to my knowledge, has a flat tax rate.

Taxing people higher just because they are rich, definitly seems like a good idea.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Taxing people higher just because they are rich, definitly seems like a good idea.

If you benefit more from the existence of civilised society, you should be responsible for a greater share of its upkeep costs.

[Neu California]

Not if they're distributed progressively, so that the rich pay more of their income (which they can afford to pay without much burden) than the poor (who losing even a small chunk of their income can cause an undue burden), which is why no developed county, to my knowledge, has a flat tax rate.

Taxing people higher just because they are rich, definitly seems like a good idea.

I agree, it does. If you get the most benefits from society, it only makes sense that you should have to give back the most as well.

Never mind that high income inequality has several very negative effects.

[EuroStralia]

Taxing people higher just because they are rich, definitly seems like a good idea.

If you benefit more from the existence of civilised society, you should be responsible for a greater share of its upkeep costs.

No, everyone should pay the same in tax, no matter how rich they are.

[Neu California]

If you benefit more from the existence of civilised society, you should be responsible for a greater share of its upkeep costs.

No, everyone should pay the same in tax, no matter how rich they are.

Yes, the person who's barely making ends meet should pay just as much tax as the person who's looking to buy their third penthouse

[Necroghastia]

If you benefit more from the existence of civilised society, you should be responsible for a greater share of its upkeep costs.

No, everyone should pay the same in tax, no matter how rich they are.

Well that's dumb, especially if you're going to act like you care about "an undue burden on ordinary people."

[EuroStralia]

No, everyone should pay the same in tax, no matter how rich they are.

Yes, the person who's barely making ends meet should pay just as much tax as the person who's looking to buy their third penthouse

Yes, it's what a fair society would do.

[Ankuran]

Power of one man over another does not exist in a free market.

Okay, so let's walk through this.

Free markets require something to exchange. This is commonly bartering of valuable goods, labor, or media of exchange, whether commodity currency, fiat currency, or hell, even something like work vouchers that don't represent a physical commodity.

What is exchanged within an economy has power: the power to trade for something else of value. If you know the value of what you have to give, you hypothetically have the power to acquire something of equal value. You might get fleeced and trade for something of lesser value, or you might get lucky (or smart) and trade up.

So we have established that commodities, labor, and currency have power. With that in mind, doesn't it seem like someone who -- whether through grift, corruption, or honest work and dealing -- has more items of value to trade would have greater power than someone with less? Therefore, in the absence of outside regulation, wouldn't he who has fewer items of value be more at the mercy of changes wrought someone with more items of value?

[EuroStralia]

No, everyone should pay the same in tax, no matter how rich they are.

Well that's dumb, especially if you're going to act like you care about "an undue burden on ordinary people."

Cut tax rates for everyone.

[Neu California]

Yes, the person who's barely making ends meet should pay just as much tax as the person who's looking to buy their third penthouse

Yes, it's what a fair society would do.

I'd rather live in a society that has a very high standard of living, and a very strong safety net where everyone pays based on how successful they are within the society than the society you consider "fair"