Econ Student here.... #7 isn't really very good as an example, because free trade has improved the quality of life for those workers by providing them with jobs. If they had better alternatives at home, you have to ask why they'd work in these "exploitive" jobs.

Plus the fact that free trade will raise wages in those countries because they will become wealthier from access to cheaper goods. In fact, poor countries benefit relatively MORE than rich countries from free trade.

https://etsmnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/black-on-white-crime-graph1.gif?w=529

I'm just going to leave this here. Just in case someone starts bitching about white privilege or some other racially charged nonsense.

As a matter of fact, none of us can survive without the help of others. Your ideological dead end that people can be completely self-reliant functions in the real world as a dual excuse for oppression excused by ignorance. Everyone on this earth deserves compassion and respect, regardless of their race or other status. You label this view as racist, since anyone who has this view and is not willfully ignorant knows that people everywhere are continually oppressed by the unjust system under whose thumb they live.

You either are an egalitarian, or you aren't - and you decidedly are not.

As to the charge of moral superiority, I appeal not to my own authority or character, but to your own sense of love, compassion, and fairness, and to the undeniable truth that all are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. Egalitarianism is no less true whether I defend it on this forum or not. None of us are fair enough or kind enough to say we truly live by it, but I will not simply watch as people spread hateful ignorance in the mask of self-assured knowledge and unjust authority. I do not believe in authority. At all times I am a brother to all of you, not a teacher or a governor; whatever the truth or falsehood of my words, this is always the truth.

I'm "socially liberal" in that I think people should have the freedom to do what the want without government-imposed moral restraints, and I'm "socially liberal" in that I think certain people need to be helped, but that help should be voluntary, not government-imposed equality restraints. The government exists to ensure liberty, not enforce morality, equality, or security.

I'm also "fiscally conservative" in that I disagree with big government spending. Not because I think these aren't necessarily worthy causes, but because I'm against the very idea of taxation. I mean, if I take money from you without your permission, that's theft. I don't see why the government should play by different rules. If you start with that position, that taxes are a violation of the non-aggression principle, it's hard not to be "fiscally conservative."

It all depends on what you mean by the words. If you go with "liberal" as leftist, or perhaps progressive principles, that are centered on high taxation and government spending, then, yeah, you can't be "fiscally conservative." If that's liberalism, I guess what I am is "socially libertarian." Do whatever the fuck you want, just don't force me to pay for it.

In other words, the idea that you can't be socially liberal and fiscally conservative is only true if "socially liberal" kind of means fiscally leftist, which is clearly in contrast with fiscal right-ism, or conservatism.

This is just another case of people trying to make it a picture of Us the Good vs. Them the Bad. This is what I stand for, and I'm an [ideology X], therefore everyone who isn't an [ideology X] must stand for the exact opposite. In reality, there are many, many different ideologies. Most issues, I'd argue, have more than 2 basic positions.

TL;DR: if "socially liberal" means "fiscally leftists," the premise is correct, if "socially liberal" means "socially libertarian," the premise is bullshit.

@krellin

"I'm socially liberal. I think you should be able to lead your life however the fuck you want. i.e. when it comes to "social issues", I don't really give a fuck you what you do, as long as you stay out of my way, and don't invade my rights."

Yeah, I think me and you see eye-to-eye on lots of things. You just dislike me because you misinterpreted me as a "libtard" because I'm anti-death penalty, and thought when I said "mistake" I was saying Tsarnaev is a "victim," when I mean the government making a mistake with other people, which they do.

But in actuality, we seem to have the same basic philosophy. You're just way more abrasive.

Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and distinguish them from strawmen.

@Thucy,

"Would care to list the forms of discrimination that you consider to be unfounded "dogma," then, if you are so unafraid to "dissent?"

"Certainly ableism is one. I'm sure you have no problem with transphobia, what else? If you wouldn't mind, could you provide a brief sentence with each about why that group of people is undeserving of your respect and compassion? Thanks so[.]"

I at no point said I was OK with discrimination against anybody. Please stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, I quite clearly said that I was not OK with discrimination against the disabled. I am also not OK with mistreating black people, Native Americans, poor people, white people, rich people, uneducated people, educated people, women, men, children, old people, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, Hindus, immigrants, the soy-intolerant, people who like purple better than mauve, or Lakers fans, among other groups, and am also against denying them common privileges available to others based on their membership in a group. ("Common" is important: the privilege of practicing medicine should be reserved for the educated, for example, specifically the medically educated).

My problem with progressive dogma on this point is that it equivocates. First of all, special words are not needed for all these different injunctions. Be nice, be fair, and don't be a jerk covers most of it. But progressives have a two-step game they like to play, which requires the introduction of new words, because without words it is impossible to equivocate.

So we introduce "ableism." It's defined as discrimination against or mistreatment of somebody because they're disabled. Well we're all against that, right? Yes, of course we are. Of *course* we are.

But then there's a quick sleight of hand. All of a sudden, you're "ableist" if you disagree, even intellectually, with progressive economic policy, or whatever other policy is being proposed as the correct solution to the challenges facing the disabled (or whatever group is under consideration). All of a sudden, progressives don't have to actually respond to the positions of those who disagree with them -- they can write them off as "ableist" -- and we all know we're all against ableism. That's discrimination against disabled people. We shouldn't even have to entertain the arguments of ableists.

This is very convenient, since the actual arguments of progressivism are often very bad (though a handful of them have some merit).

This strategy is clear to be seen in the article that started this thread, which not coincidentally accused anybody disagreeing with progressive fiscal politics of ableism (and thus of a morally repugnant position, not just a wrong one).

Of course, this all hinges on equivocation. The word is now being used in quite a different way -- "supporting policies that do not treat disabled people in the specific ways that I think would be most effective at helping them." That's quite a different thing than saying we shouldn't discriminate, and if you all weren't so busy throwing moral accusations at your opponents, we could perhaps discuss the positions rationally. You've defined the word one way, and then subtly switched to another in order to gain moral high ground over your opponents. What you've actually done is jumped into the slime.

You're so desperate to make this move that you tried to go ahead and use it against me anyway, even after I rejected the word "ableist," by moving forward without it and accusing me of supporting discrimination.

And it's just incredible. This thread is really amazing. In it, progressives are nakedly attacking other forum members as discriminatory *just for refusing to use the words they demand.* It is because these words are a powerful hook for progressive "arguments," and it infuriates you when people don't sign on to care about them. No longer is actual discrimination the sin; the sin is not speaking about it in your hallowed words.

So yes, I reject your orthodoxy, but no, I don't support discrimination. I just know that life is much more complicated than a narrative of happiness and success marred only and precisely by those ways in which one is impinged upon due to membership in various groups. I will oppose cruel behavior when I see it, irrespective of the identities of the people doing it or to whom it is done. I will continue to reject attempts to classify all of it in facile ways based on group memberships. And you'll doubtless accuse me of discrimination for doing so, but I can only hope your words are seen for the emptiness they are.

It all comes down to freedom of speech.

I'm against discrimination, but I'm also against restricting speech. Just how I'm against alcoholism yet am not in favour of bringing back prohibition.

Restricting speech is a slippery slope. They get things by on account of "protection." The Patriot Act is supposedly to protect us from big bad terrorists. Nazi Germany rose to power to protect people from those dirty Jewish people and Communists. I'm afraid that if we throw the 1st amendment out the window just as we have the 4th.

This idea of "social liberalism" as the government helping people comes from a good place, and isn't all bad, but I think it often steps too far. I prefer my variant of "social liberalism," which I guess would be better called "social libertarianism." Do what you want, maybe I'll voluntarily help you pay for it, but don't force me to.

Maybe I skimmed through some stuff and misunderstood your points, fellow webDippers of the Forum, but I think I got it enough, and made a relevant point. If not, oh well, this thread was lacking in crazy libertarian conspiracies anyway!

"Please stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, I quite clearly said that I was not OK with discrimination against the disabled."

Are you in favour of positive discrimination for disabled people, such as parking spaces close to shop entrances?

"First of all, special words are not needed for all these different injunctions. Be nice, be fair, and don't be a jerk covers most of it."

No, but we use language to communicate, and clarity, brevity and specificity are all useful in that regard. It is easier to communicate ideas which we have words for.

All of a sudden a discussion occurs around the idea of ableism, a discussion including the voices of disabled people who actually experience ableism in their daily lives, and we get to listen to their recommendations. Or decide we know better for them what is right for their lives and assume our opinions are superior.

That is the second step. Listening to the conversation which the new words encourage.

"And it's just incredible. This thread is really amazing. In it, progressives are nakedly attacking other forum members as discriminatory *just for refusing to use the words they demand.*"

No, not knowing the words, which means not being part of/listening to the conversations which use them.

That is, you may think its great to treat people well, but you ignorantly refuse to engage in the conversation around what well means to them. Discrimination via ignoring their specific needs.

And while you may be right that you disagree with specific policies, i doubt you can understand them or argue WHY they are wrong before engaging in the conversation.

That doesn't make you wrong, but your refusal to use these words indicate a lack of care for these topics, and a lack of empathy for the suffering of others. Which is why you are being attacked.

Words have power, and you are not limited by intellectual capacity, education, or wealth, from using them. Your refusal speak to the content of your character.

"I will oppose cruel behavior when I see it, irrespective of the identities of the people doing it or to whom it is done. "

Is waiting to see it enough? Are you able to go out and find it? And address it?
To engage in conversations discussing discrimination and the experiences of the marginalised?

I don't condemn you for your use of language, or your avoidance of categorisation. I question you because you appear indifferent to the suffering of other - where you can't see it.

"This idea of "social liberalism" as the government helping people comes from a good place, and isn't all bad, but I think it often steps too far. I prefer my variant of "social liberalism," which I guess would be better called "social libertarianism." Do what you want, maybe I'll voluntarily help you pay for it, but don't force me to."

Maybe that works for individuals, but corporations - with only one motivation, profits for shareholders - will often ignore charitable causes. Especially the biggest corporations (not the majority of small an medium enterprises who actually have a foothold in their local community and can see the reality on the ground of what people need, BUT the majority of the wealth, which is held by the largest few corporations)

How do you feel about abolishing income tax, while increasing taxation of corporate profits?

"which means not being part of/listening to the conversations which use them." So you're calling them bigots for not being part of your social circle, then?

Did i use the word bigot?

"Maybe that works for individuals, but corporations - with only one motivation, profits for shareholders - will often ignore charitable causes."

Complete and utter fucking rubish. Corproations sponsor charitable activities all the time.


"How do you feel about abolishing income tax, while increasing taxation of corporate profits? "

ALSO complete and utter rubish. Get this through your thick skull...CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES. Precisely what do you think a corporation does when they have a tax bill? Do you think they say, "Awwwww.shucks....I guess we make less money this year....gosh darned taxes..." or do you think they say:
1. How much should we raise prices this year to cover taxes, and,
2. How much will it cost to move the company somewhere with a lower tax burden?

The consumer pays corporate taxes....and as far as that goes, it means that corporate taxes hit THE POOR harder than anyone else.

A graduated income tax, such as we have now, in theory taxes the rich more than the poor (if there weren't so many loop-holes, etc etc etc...that's another topic). So the poor get off "easy" in a graduated income tax structure.

But....when yo uthen place a 35% tax, for example, on a corporation, and the impact is that they raise the price of their products by x%....that x% price increase is applied to EVERY consumer, regardless of income. And that x% price increase is a minimal impact on the rich, and a much larger percentage hit on the poor buying the same product.

So....once again, the ridiculous, narrow-minded Libtard idea of "tax evil corporations and save the poor" in fact has the EXACT OPPOSITE imapct, in that it affects the poor much more than the rich.

And not just in the are of increased product pricing...but a heavily taxe corporation will also MOVE to a lower taxed state/country, if possible....thus depriving the poor of job opportunites, or they will do other things to cut costs, such as automotation, fewer employees with more overtime, more outsourcing, etc.

It's really pathetic that so many seemingly intelligent people in Webdipistan don't have a fucking clue about how the world they want to impose their idiotic philosophy upon actually works.

"Complete and utter fucking rubish. Corproations sponsor charitable activities all the time"

Lol

Thucy, you narrow-minded childish moron -- your ignorance of a thing doesn't make your perverse beliefs true.

Looking up records on the charitable givings of corporations is only a fucking mouse click away, you festering twat. But....I know....having to confront facts that destroy your carefully constructed libtard ideology would be bad for your already unstable mental health.

Keep moving along in a state of ignorance and willful stupidity, as you and your ilk always do. The only one you harm is yourself....and every gullible assclown that you manage to convince of your lies.

Ignorant racist twat.

Slack-eyed ignoramus krellin, take your own advice. A couple mouse clicks away:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FCTAX

Jeff, for the first time in a long while, krellin gives a coherent argument--and you repay him by misunderstanding!

He's not saying that corporate tax revenues are zero, he's saying that corporations seek to neutralise the effects of the taxes either by raising prices or by moving their business elsewhere to avoid any increase in rates. The net effect is that people on the lower end of the income scale end up suffering more due to either (1) higher prices on goods or (2) losing their manufacturing (or other) jobs.

Jef,, as always, you have the intellectual capacity of an ass zit.

Please demonstrate to me how corporations do not donate to charity, you frothing twat, as that is Thucy's childish unspoken assertion.

pangloss - thanks, but you are wasting your time trying to convince the rabid and raving lunatics of truth, and the logical consequences of their perverse greedy libtard ideology. The concept of action - reaction is foreign to these fools....most Libtard analysis of such things as taxes, etc, takes place in a static vacuum....it is incomprehensible to the simple-minded that when you impact a company in a negative way, that the corporation will react in a way to minimize said impact.

But....generally speaking...at the heart of these fools you will usually find a budding authoritarian, who would seek to *impose* such static responses by limiting, if not outright eliminating, freedoms. The reason their assertions fail is that far too often the unspoken premise behind their ideology of taking from others is that they envision a world in which nobody - individual or corporation - would have the freedom to react in a a defensive, self-preserving manner.

THAT is why such assclowns are so truly terrifying.

"Get this through your thick skull...CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES."

Seems like a pretty unambiguous statement to me.

krellin, feel free to retract your frothy and factually incorrect spewage.

Read a few sentences further than that, Jeff.

"Looking up records on the charitable givings of corporations is only a fucking mouse click away, you festering twat. But....I know....having to confront facts that destroy your carefully constructed libtard ideology would be bad for your already unstable mental health."

I don't know about Ireland, but in the US corporations get tax breaks for charitable 'donations', so in effect, instead of paying taxes they look charitable. Which is great PR.

Now perhaps they also direct some of their advertising budget towards charitable causes, because there is a limit to what advertising can do - especially once your brand is well known.

Makes sense, increases profits. But it is a way to gain an extra benefit because it doesn't really look that impressive to tell your customers, "oh by the way, we paid out taxes!" - when you HAVE to pay your taxes.

Second, i did say corporate *profits* we already know corporations will do whatever they say to increase their profits. If they can increase their prices witout losing customers they will, and if they can blame it on government taxation all the better. But you have a point, corporations trying to maximise their profits will tell the public that they're going to have to increase their prices if the people vote to increase taxation.

Corporations are smart like that. If the net profit taxation is applied to ALL corporations equally, then investors will lose out no matter which company they invest in, and the CEOs don't have to worry about the reduced profits given to shareholders.

Of course moving to a lower tax regime is a problem and i acknowledge that as an issue with any attempt to get money out of corporations. If you've got a solution i'm more than happy to hear your advice. Maybe something like capital gains tax - so the movement of capital *out* of a state incurs a % cost. (Maybe with a certain minimum, so the first 10% is free, and if you want to slowly move your company out of the state over ten years you can m, but the employees will have advance warning to adjust!)

Jeff, I'm not usually one to side with krellin, but are you bothering to read?

@Krellin - you effectively said 'corporations don't pay taxes and the state doesn't have the capacity to force them to pay taxes'

I would note that revenue raising power (usually through taxation) is a fundamental feature of state sovereignty. The EU does not have the capacity to set it's own budget or raise it's own revenue, it's member nations remain sovereign in this sense; meanwhile the US federal government is able to raise tax revenues, and thus it retains sovereignty.

Corporations raise revenue aswell (by providing services/products) but their capacity to remain in a market while moving their employment to another state is a mechanism to escape/erode state sovereignty. Even the mere threat of moving gives them undue power over the state's actions. (You can argue whether this power is undue, or justly deserved, once you're willing to agree that it exists)

There is nothing inaccurate about my statement. I don't care about krellin's conclusions because he starts off with a false trolling statement, the same as he ever does. Fuck that shit.

Semck, the reason these words have been coined is that a simple "don't be mean" is not cutting it for different swathes of people, owing to the fact that such groups are systematically disadvantaged.

This relates to the second reason these words exist, consciousness-raising. Or equivocating as you call it. Orathaic is right - the world is such that for many people, relying on the privileged class to see their instances of discrimination and suffering and act responsibly to prevent it is not enough - precisely because privilege functions as a systematic process that prevents such people from even noticing.

You say these words are used as bludgeons for those who disagree with proposed economic (systematic) reforms to deal with this discrimination. Yet meanwhile you offer no alternative other than to continue as before and try to be nice. Yet it is because of the lack of systematic reform that these people are not treated with the proper respect. You cannot divorce social relations from politics - if you attempt to do so, your de facto political position is a defense of the unacceptable status quo - the arch-conservative. If you wish to provide alternative reforms to the ones currently under discussion, you may do so, but a non-answer like "just be nice" does not count.