Hmmm.
So you don't believe that lowering taxes (let's just leave your qualifying word "immensely" out of the equation for now) betters the economy?
What's a fair and equitable tax load, in your opinion?
What's your opinion about a flat tax? Tax on consumption rather than income?
What's the difference between an economic "moderate" versus an economic "leftist"?
I do believe lowering taxes does help the economy in some ways, we just also have to decrease government spending along with it. That's the only real reason I'm hesitant about lowering taxes, we need to pay our bills too.
A fair tax load? That's a good question. I'll answer your question about a flat tax first, I find that flat tax has some issues, but is ultimately fair to everyone in all income groups whether they be poor, rich, or somewhere in between.
Now, on that, a fair tax load? I assume you mean where the burden should fall. Well, the burden should be evenly distributed among all economic classes. The burden shouldn't just be put on the rich and then say the lower classes shouldn't pay a dime.
An economic leftist is more friendly to progressive, socialist, and/or communist economic practices. They are usually strong supporters of taxation on the rich, they are huge supporters of labor unions, and are more friendly to government regulation and increases in governmental power over the economy. An economic moderate, is someone who is not on either side of the spectrum, he is not left-wing or right-wing regarding economics, but supports moderation between the two.
Welcome to the Cave. I'm Big Dog, from Kansas. I am a classical individualist and a libertarian.
I'm curious about a few things, if you are inclined to answer.
You are using a USCG Aviation Survivalman sleeve insignia as your avatar. Are/were you a Rescue Swimmer?
In what ways are fascism and National Socialism "wholesome" expressions of political or economic radicalism?
In what ways are fascism and National Socialism "reactionary"?
Liberty is a Natural and Unalienable Right. See Locke's Second Treatise on Government, and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Liberty's opposite state is not authority, but tyranny.
In what sense is involuntary infringement of my individual liberty by government nice or harmonic?
Who determines what are "nice" and "harmonic" violations of a man's liberty?
Which of my personal liberties would you violate, or have the government violate in your name, in the name of "harmony"?
What is your basis for this statement?
What is your basis for this statement?
Neither the country nor the nation is synonymous with the State. The State, i.e., the government, is the servant of the free and sovereign individual. Again, see the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
As long as someone else's blood is being spilled, or are you walking the walk?
I look forward to reading your answers.
I was not a Rescue Swimmer, and I am not in the Coast Guard. I was scrolling through the selection of avatars and saw that it looked aesthetically appealing. If this is stolen valor, I apologize.
Fascism and National Socialism, at least very much amongst its supporters today, are inherently reactionary. They want to go back to a time where absolute authority reigned. This is what makes them wholesomely reactionary, as they encompass the full extent of what a reactionary is (this also answers the second question.) I myself want to bring back the morals of the older generations: Judeo-Christian values, respect for superiors and elders, Puritan work ethic, and of course, the patriotism that is seemingly lacking in society today (especially in New York school systems.)
How is infringement of individual liberty nice? I'm going to be frank, it isn't. I do not support infringing your liberty simply because the government wants to. However, in this country there needs to be a balance. There needs to be enough liberty for the individual to live comfortably and in peace, free of governmental authority. However, there also needs to be enough authority for the government to prevent anarchy and crime from occurring, along with prohibiting some immoral activities such as bestiality, polygamy, and keeping marriage legally between heterosexual couples (unfortunately, in my state this is not the case.)
However, who determines this? Well, elected representatives in government. They vote on matters on national interest, but rights are still protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What rights would I violate? Well, I believe that in regards to left-wing radicals such as anarchists, communists, socialists, Marxists, etc.; they should be watched, and if the activities of these groups becomes borderline violent (or they advocate violence) I believe the government has the full right to arrest them and charge them with conspiracy. Yes, they do have a right to an opinion, but I do not believe that advocating violence or terrorism against the United States and its people should be taken lightly. I also stand with the statute given in Schenck v. United States.
My basis for the country and nation statements is that I view them as being distinctively separate. The country is the currently existing political institution of the nation, while the nation is all of the cultural, social, non-political aspects of its existence.
I was thinking about going into the Military as a Reservist, maybe National Guard, or the Marines (although if I was to go into the Marines I would most likely be in active duty.) Militarism is both respect for the military, and actively supporting the institution of the armed forces. The former I have taken care of, the latter I do as well, but I do admit without taking part in it myself I am seemingly like a hypocrite who wants other people to die for his ideals.
And I would
definitely not consider myself a Progressive. Even though Roosevelt was a Progressive, I'm pretty sure that today's Progressives are much different from the Progressives of the 1900s, at the very least in attitude and social policy. I like the content of the quote more than I do his party affiliation.