I always found the political compass test questions massively skewed towards a left/libertarian result; “do you think other races are subhumans who should be subjugated and possibly genocide??? No???!! I guess you’re an extreme libertarian!
-Urbanist, YIMBY adjacent [Cost benefit land use and building code policies]
-Sympathetic to YIMBY policies but opposes their ideology [See above]
-Balanced approach to policing issues [Better policing to deter crime against low income and minority populations]
-Health insurance as a utility but doctors are private [Purchased by individuals with tax credits]
-Moderate Transhumanism [Extreme humanism. 😊]
-Theosophical approach to moralistic issues [Avoid moralizing issues]
-Leave many social and economic issues to the local or regional level [But which?]
-Copywrite reform, copywrite protections limited to the creator
-Distributism [No new jargon, please]
-Support effective altruism on principle but movement is grifty [How is this something on which we need a “stance?”
-abortion is legal but regulated and viewed as low class [😊]
-anti liberal LGBTQ ideology but support gays as creative caste [oppose ALL anti-liberal ideologies.]
-Pro-nuclear energy [to the extent that it benefits from taxation of net CO2 and regulatory reform.]
-Pro-private sector unions but anti-public sector unions [Both are OK as long as they stick to compensation and don’t intrude on management.]
-Private property and protection of the commons duality is crucial [Pigou taxation of negative externalities such as net CO2 emissions]
-Social security [+ Medicare+ unemployment insurance + child allowance and financed with a VAT] lockbox but not privatized
ADD
Progressive consumption taxes (= more revenue from high income people) to close the deficit except public expenditures that have NPV>0
Monetary policy guided by Flexible (forward-looking) Average Inflation targeting with setting of instrument values such that expectation of policies to raise future inflation are as likely as policy to reduce future inflation.
Merit based immigration
Firearms registration and tracing to keep guns out of the hands of urban thugs and other undesirables.
Reduce animal suffering.
Congestion taxation and urban road and street use fees
Multiculturalism AND assimilationism
EITC (one aspect of progressive consumption taxes) over UBI
Cautious foreign policy interventionism in defense of liberal polities. Bland hostility to passive tyrannies,
Gun rights and right to defend life and property with force, but with good enough law enforcement that no one would need to bother.
In short:
“We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances and services) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed with a progressive consumption taxes and revenues used for redistribution and for purchase of public goods whose expenditures pass an NPV>0 test when inputs and outputs are valued at Pigou tax/subsidy inclusive prices.
I like some of these things, but others from each not so much. Specifically, income inequality. Whilst I recognize that the middle class is shrinking and the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the poor is growing, I don't see how it's bad that different jobs require different skills, thus will require different levels of payment.
The vast majority of people who think our current extremes of income/wealth inequality are bad are not at all concerned with the income discrepancies that arise from variable skill levels. No one argues that a doctor or skilled craftsman should not make higher wages than a house cleaner or burger flipper. They're concerned with unearned income, not income from work. It's income that does not arise from work you perform but from work OTHERS that is the problem: inherited wealth, dividends, capital gains. If you have a trust fund your parents create, your income comes from dividends and rents on capital they accrued through THEIR work, and through the work of the people working for the companies that pay your trust the dividends. If your income comes from investments generating cash flow, that cash comes from others who are working to pay you that dividend. And the reason it's all a problem in the US is because taxes on wages (ie earned income) is twice as much as an on unearned income.
The marginal rate I pay on my salary earned through my work is 37%. The marginal rate I pay on my investments is only 20%. The rate most people who inherit pay is 0%. The returns are much higher for people who don't work and let their assets do their work for them, than for people who sell their skills by working, and over the decades and generations this compounds. That's what people are concerned with, and what Warren Buffet meant when he said his secretary pays way more in taxes than he does (as a percentage).
I agree with most of those points, least on the authoritarian right, and i'm a Libertarian Fascist Socialist. I don't think those divisions are inherent or particularly discernable.
I always found the political compass test questions massively skewed towards a left/libertarian result; “do you think other races are subhumans who should be subjugated and possibly genocide??? No???!! I guess you’re an extreme libertarian!
despite any of my previous alt-right larps I've always scored around -2,2 on the compass test when being 100% truthful with myself
I am here to make sure everyone goes the Jreg route of being Anti-Centrists Extremists. lol
Modification/clarification of Center:
Center stances:
-Urbanist, YIMBY adjacent [Cost benefit land use and building code policies]
-Sympathetic to YIMBY policies but opposes their ideology [See above]
-Balanced approach to policing issues [Better policing to deter crime against low income and minority populations]
-Health insurance as a utility but doctors are private [Purchased by individuals with tax credits]
-Moderate Transhumanism [Extreme humanism. 😊]
-Theosophical approach to moralistic issues [Avoid moralizing issues]
-Leave many social and economic issues to the local or regional level [But which?]
-Copywrite reform, copywrite protections limited to the creator
-Distributism [No new jargon, please]
-Support effective altruism on principle but movement is grifty [How is this something on which we need a “stance?”
-abortion is legal but regulated and viewed as low class [😊]
-anti liberal LGBTQ ideology but support gays as creative caste [oppose ALL anti-liberal ideologies.]
-Pro-nuclear energy [to the extent that it benefits from taxation of net CO2 and regulatory reform.]
-Pro-private sector unions but anti-public sector unions [Both are OK as long as they stick to compensation and don’t intrude on management.]
-Private property and protection of the commons duality is crucial [Pigou taxation of negative externalities such as net CO2 emissions]
-Social security [+ Medicare+ unemployment insurance + child allowance and financed with a VAT] lockbox but not privatized
ADD
Progressive consumption taxes (= more revenue from high income people) to close the deficit except public expenditures that have NPV>0
Monetary policy guided by Flexible (forward-looking) Average Inflation targeting with setting of instrument values such that expectation of policies to raise future inflation are as likely as policy to reduce future inflation.
Merit based immigration
Firearms registration and tracing to keep guns out of the hands of urban thugs and other undesirables.
Reduce animal suffering.
Congestion taxation and urban road and street use fees
Multiculturalism AND assimilationism
EITC (one aspect of progressive consumption taxes) over UBI
Cautious foreign policy interventionism in defense of liberal polities. Bland hostility to passive tyrannies,
Gun rights and right to defend life and property with force, but with good enough law enforcement that no one would need to bother.
In short:
“We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances and services) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed with a progressive consumption taxes and revenues used for redistribution and for purchase of public goods whose expenditures pass an NPV>0 test when inputs and outputs are valued at Pigou tax/subsidy inclusive prices.
I like some of these things, but others from each not so much. Specifically, income inequality. Whilst I recognize that the middle class is shrinking and the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the poor is growing, I don't see how it's bad that different jobs require different skills, thus will require different levels of payment.
The vast majority of people who think our current extremes of income/wealth inequality are bad are not at all concerned with the income discrepancies that arise from variable skill levels. No one argues that a doctor or skilled craftsman should not make higher wages than a house cleaner or burger flipper. They're concerned with unearned income, not income from work. It's income that does not arise from work you perform but from work OTHERS that is the problem: inherited wealth, dividends, capital gains. If you have a trust fund your parents create, your income comes from dividends and rents on capital they accrued through THEIR work, and through the work of the people working for the companies that pay your trust the dividends. If your income comes from investments generating cash flow, that cash comes from others who are working to pay you that dividend. And the reason it's all a problem in the US is because taxes on wages (ie earned income) is twice as much as an on unearned income.
The marginal rate I pay on my salary earned through my work is 37%. The marginal rate I pay on my investments is only 20%. The rate most people who inherit pay is 0%. The returns are much higher for people who don't work and let their assets do their work for them, than for people who sell their skills by working, and over the decades and generations this compounds. That's what people are concerned with, and what Warren Buffet meant when he said his secretary pays way more in taxes than he does (as a percentage).
Correct sentiment. Proper policy is progressive consumption taxes.
The problem is the nature of our economy which is based on financial parasitism more than production.
I agree with most of those points, least on the authoritarian right, and i'm a Libertarian Fascist Socialist. I don't think those divisions are inherent or particularly discernable.
I like most of these as well but am sure how ‘a caste system’ or ‘beauty hierarchy’ would work in practice.
Look to India
Blech, no thanks! Finance capitalism is bad enough in ‘Da West.’
I hate India because it's full of Indians, starts and ends there, actually!
Let me explain a beauty hierarchy to you:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-136539425
I’d agree with you here. We need only revert to normal aesthetic standards that existed up until about 1965 in western societies.
If by 1965 you mean 1465. :-)
Lmao.
that kind of falls into "Jesse what the fuck are you talking about" but in light of everything else I can overlook it
-Multiculturalism over assimilationism
yes I meant assimilationism in my previous comment on Jews last time