| Dec 18 2016 10:46 AM
The more flat the tax, the less progressive it is. That's the overall point.
Conservatives want to completely eliminate taxes
Not sure about that. Plenty of neocons would gladly tax and spend like drunken sailors on military projects.
I'm a conservative and very anti-establishment.
Then by definition you must want to conserve some other establishment. Which is fine BTW. You can't be a conservative and not try to conserve something. I.E. Trump, "I want to make America great again" - so he's trying to conserve a previous version of America, some sort of spirit that he believes resides in it still. Overthrow liberal institutions that have taken over the country and conserve those establishments of the American yesteryear that he supports. Conservatism is always backward-facing, while progressivism takes what's happened and tries to progress it forwards in some way. Progressivism says that the old way of doing things sucks and tries to find a better way. To take the obvious example, a conservative might try to conserve the traditional institution of marriage, while a progressive would try to find new, better models for society to fulfill that task.
You guys have really embraced 1984 as a blueprint.
You make it sound like liberals are an old boys club who just sit around a camp fire and try to control the world or something. I have more faith in democracy than corporatocracy. I don't want non-elected and unaccountable companies being controlled by a flawed economic system with a few elites at the top, being able to do things like demolish my home or cut off my water supply. If those things ever did happen, I'd want it to be for a very good reason, not merely somebody's profits. And mandates are one way to ensure that. It is the nature of the government in 1984 that is the problem. The government tries to control people more than institutions. Social and economic liberty is robbed from the people and no liberal wants that. So of course we need to be careful whom we elect and make our democracies as strong / accountable as possible.
major banks write banking legislation
Oh like "IMA Bank shall be empowered to collect whatever monies it desires by raising an armed militia and plundering local towns"? Great for IMA Bank's profits I'm sure. There's this illusion that people running banks know what they're doing. If that were true banking lobbyists would give sensible advice. In fact they tend to advise for more loopholes. Banks have proven that they'll gladly act against the advice of their own economists. They're the ones who told Obama to bail them out when they were stupid and noncompetitive. Insurance agencies are the same sort of deal.
A real free trade deal would require one sentence signed on a piece of paper, not 10,000 or more pages of legalese.
Most of the legalese deals with what happens if one party to the contract has a tort claim. Which is not an easy problem. What legislation prevents free competition, for example? If I impose an environmental tax on polluting industries in my country, does that breach a free trade contract? In some cases trade courts have ruled that it does.
Is this some perverted Marxist view of equality or is it the sensible political equality view?
For me it's equal opportunity.
a Laisse Faire system would create economic autonomy
Only in terms of who you give your money to. Which isn't very autonomous in the big scheme of things. Economies are big institutions.
We can see under your liberal policies people have become corporate wage slaves
#1 - not all liberals agree on all things. I'm sure there's some things you disagree with other conservatives on.
#2 - if they're not protected from corporations then I do not consider them free or equal. I'm a fan of mandating better pay and conditions for all blue collar workers.
#3 - Glass Steagull had virtually nothing to do with it. Opening up securities trading for banks actually was one of the major causes of the 08 financial crisis. Limiting investment trading for banks does not link to moms and pops being uncompetitive. Nobody legislated against mom and pop banks.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
| Dec 18 2016 11:33 AM
You are defining conservatism and liberalism incorrect for one. I will get to the rest later. Conservative is how antistatist you are. Conservatives want a limited government, where as liberal refers to how statist a person is. A liveral is a statist who thinks government can and should solve all of a societies problems. For example, liberals thought racial integration was banned, so they banned blacks from whire schools, while conservatives think schools should be allowed to accept whatever students they want. No a conservative does not to preserve the status quo. It's why Libertarians are considered conservative, and they want fo overthrow the corporatocracy that liberals created, as well as why they oppose over regulation and a police state that liberals support.