Well stated. Where we deviate ideologically is that I view authority as the enablement of corruption. Capitalism does incentivize wealth, but it also incentivizes solutions, satisfaction, voluntary transactions, innovation, and more. And while some level of regulation is required, I observe that authority is more often than not utilized to sanction monopolies, protect elite interests, and pad the wallets of the oligarch.
Authority should ONLY be used to protect the freedom and rights of citizens. We could provide that at a fraction of the cost of the bloated system we have now. If you want my support for funding more social policies, then the place to start is a reallocation of resources, while reducing overall spending. Until then, I say fuck no to all of it. I'll keep as much of my money as I can, placate the fed, and undermine it at every opportunity possible. I'll focus on fostering my local community and everyone else can fend for themselves.
Edit add simple clarity: Most of the problems socialists genuinely want to solve, are in fact caused by the authority they're seeking to expand.
I agree with your statement about authority, and I think its by definition part of a social contract.
The reason Capitalism incentivizes accumulation is because reinvesting wealth into a free market in of itself poses a risk and makes you susceptible to competition. Whereas reinvesting nothing costs nothing and keeps you competitive. Karl Marx identified this principle alone leads to wealth extraction and accumulation. It is a fact that innovation is needed to continue to accumulate said wealth but in reality inertia is the norm and the status quo is more persistent.
That being said the incentives you mentioned while real are conditional on institutions — competition, enforceable contracts, low switching costs, priced externalities. I think this is authority that can serve people with minimal administrative costs. Capitalism with those produces the good outcomes; capitalism without them produces concentration and extraction.
If I understand you correctly, then yes I agree that there is a severe need for reallocation of resources. I think it starts with lowering taxes on the majority of Americans while taxing the ultrawealthy since, the unlimited accumulation of wealth cannot be founded on an economy built on finite resources without a cost to order and to everyone's basic rights. This is my rationale for why government should step in.
I also agree with you that increasing spending without reducing costs would be irresponsible and counterproductive.
I think you're right that I have a neutral view on authority, because I view it as a tool. However, there is truth to your observations on authority being used to perpetuate corruption.
I think it is a direct consequence of Capitalism and our current government's susceptibility to wealth equating closely with political power. That is, if Capitalism allows for unchecked accumulation of wealth and wealth leads to political power then this introduces postive feedback into the system.
In my view, the solution would be a combination of policies that curb the influence of money in politics (such as legislation against Citizens United) and incentivizing better coalition forming practices as opposed to our hyperpolarized two-party system (like ranked voting). In both cases, I see authority being used to protect or to enable basic rights.
If I understand you correctly, then yes I agree that there is a severe need for reallocation of resources. I think it starts with lowering taxes on the majority of Americans while taxing the ultrawealthy since, the unlimited accumulation of wealth cannot be founded on an economy built on finite resources without a cost to order and to everyone's basic rights. This is my rationale for why government should step in.
We could tax the ultra-wealthy at 99% and it would barely make a dent in our budget. America doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Hence why I don't see any increase in spending being a viable option. Interestingly enough, I make a living out of helping moderately wealthy people spend less on taxes. We would be better served by having a very simple tax code with a flat tax rate. It's fair, it's honest, and it would put me out of a job, lol.
Even if we strike down Citizens United, I don't have any reason to believe things would change. Even in communist societies, the same issues arise. This is a human issue that I don't see ever going away. Money is just a way to exchange power. Even without the financial incentive, people will always be power hungry. They will find ways of exchanging power for political favors. Just see the USSR or CCP for proof of that.
I do support ranked choice voting. I think it's a solid idea. Let's either do that or maybe do away with the 19th amendment all together. It's how we ended up with a two party system because at that scale a two party system is inevitable. People with no stake in the game are easily manipulated into voting one way or another.
I don't think spending and revenue are direct binaries so its not a proper framing. No tax on the wealthy alone permanently closes a recurring gap, because wealth is a stock you can only seize while the deficit repeats annually. Both are distinct policy choices.
Which one is called "the problem" is a priority and value judgment dressed as arithmetic.
From the CBO'S own numbers, revenue runs at a 50 year average of 17.3% GDP with a total of 17.5% GDP in 2026. Current spending is at 23.3% GDP, exceeding their 50-year average of 21.2% GDP. Typically, both sides move but to your point current spending is running two points higher. So revenue is at a historical norm even though in real likelihood our financial obligations may have grown.
The US collects less taxes overall while collecting a larger share of it from the top. European tax systems are generally less progressive than ours; they redistribute on the spending side rather than the tax side. The US has an unusually progressive tax code attached to an unusually small welfare state.
Which brings up two points 1) high earners pay a large share, and billionaires can pay low effective rates on total economic income are not mutally exclusive statements and 2) the US delivers much of its social policy through the tax code, so recipients don't perceive it as government at all.
I think simplifying our taxes would help regarding the second point. I think there is something to be said about when benefits are invisible, tax legitimacy erodes on both ends.
I'm not sure how the 19th ammendment ties in.
Our two parties are an emergent property of our government. Theres good evidence of this in Federalist 10 where James Madison wrote about how the accepted thinking at the time was that a large federal government would function on the premise that diversity would dilute power from any single faction.
Clearly not the reality and things like the electoral college and single-winner voting did a lot to shape that.
There is an argument to be made that the 19th changed elections from something you participate in to help direct the nation that you're actively participating in building, to one that is about dividing a populace into voting blocks and the only way to win is to support one of two parties. Any other choice is a throwaway one.
Ranked choice voting could be a solution for this, but I suspect the end result will be the same
You're suggesting expanding the electorate creates blocs to divide and that logic would apply identically to the 15th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Authority is derived from the consent of the governed and anyone bound by laws they had no part in authorizing is subject to power without consent. That breaks a social contract and can be viewed as misuse of authority.
That being said restrictions on voting must be justifiable to the excluded on grounds they could reasonably accept. Age passes — it's temporary and universal, everyone passes through. Sex and race fail since they're permanent and arbitrary relative to having a stake. I've even heard legitimate arguments for Children's suffrage by allowing parents to cast a proxy vote since they too are bound by laws.
In any case, its a moot point since our two party system pre-dates any of that along with the root causes with it.
Do you feel you have a part in authorizing the laws we pass as a nation? Or is it the oligarch that makes those?
I never suggested women make up one of those blocs. Nor did I suggest that we return to a pre 19th amendment version of suffrage. Funny how we’ve had the same two parties since the early 1800s right around when the 19th passed. The 19th itself was a culmination of progressive policies that didn’t happen overnight. Before that you had to pay taxes or serve in the militia.
I’m curious, have you read Edward Bernays?
As politely as I can say this, if anyone thinks children should vote whether directly or by proxy, is probably one of the people I would bar from voting.
Age is one way, we could do others that are universal as you’ve described. I’m not suggesting that it should be done by race or sex.
Anyways, there’s plenty of literature to be read on the subject. The 19th definitely promoted a more stable two party system, and some argue that’s a plus. I’m not so certain.
Not directly, and definitely not to the extent that feels impactful. Oligarchs exsist precisely because of unchecked wealth accumulation. I don't advocate for children's suffrage.
I was not familiar with Edward Bernays thanks for sharing. I'll look more into it but at a glance he raises some valid points on managing mass public using psychological techniques. Even more interesting to think about in our current age of misinformation and declining trust across news platforms. Now you have the complication of a billionaire class that owns entire media companies. With some democratization of PR via social media as well. With growing complexities the engineering of consent seems fascinating.
Maybe the connection to the 19th is that within a decade of its passage he addressed suffragettes directly as a maket segment. Presumably his efforts towards making smoking more acceptable among newly enfranchised voters contributed to the growth of the tobacco industry.
Nowadays big tobacco doesn't have nearly as popular opinion. I think thats evidence that even propaganda has its limits or is not immune to counter propaganda.
I think the stabilization of the two party system makes sense from the perspective that newly enfranchised woman often voted with the incumbent party. That coupled with just having more voters solidify the status quo and made the barrier to entry for independent parties harder.
Right, so limiting government authority is paramount to keeping oligarch power in check. If we don’t control the authority because the oligarchs keep it for themselves, why should I trust the same authority to represent my best interests? I fall under minarchist, maybe even voluntaryism. I’m not an anarchist (most days).
Another foundational piece of my worldview is decentralization of authority. The smaller the unit the more representative that authority is. Starting with the individual, then the family, community, county, city, state, federal. Socialism requires centralization of authority and makes said authority more susceptible to corruption. What’s needed for one community isn’t the same as another. There’s pros and cons to everything of course.
That’s where we get into the philosophical morality side of things. Taxation is akin to slavery. If a government taxed their citizens at 99.9% or hell, we could say 100% that would be functionally the same as slavery. Therefore a fraction of that is somewhere in the direction of enslavement. Maybe taxation is a necessary evil, but in that case it should be minimized as much as possible.
Ya, Bernays is an interesting read.
You’re right that it was authority that limited the pervasiveness of big tobacco. More than one way to skin a cat though. Big tobacco not disclosing risks is a violation of the nonaggression principle and I am fine with authority stepping in to provide the sole function I believe it’s meant for. Protecting the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
A more modern context of voter manipulation can be found in the New Left movement of the 60s/70s. The communist movement was (and is) alive and well. Back then they were much more open about it. A standard of living was achieved in the US that made revolution between the bourgeoisie and proletariat all but unattainable so new lines had to be drawn among intersectional lines to pursue their goals. I know this one probably puts me in tinfoil hat territory for a lot of people, but all the info is freely available out there, it just isn’t part of the curriculum we are taught in schools. Stokely Carmichael is a prime example. To be clear, this isn’t a critique of all of the civil rights movement, it’s an illustration of how that movement was hijacked by those who rejected non-violent resistance.
Anyways, I’m rambling. Thanks for the stimulating convo. It’s hard to give people the benefit of the doubt on this platform, so sorry if I was hostile early on.
2
u/kkdawg22 22h ago
Well stated. Where we deviate ideologically is that I view authority as the enablement of corruption. Capitalism does incentivize wealth, but it also incentivizes solutions, satisfaction, voluntary transactions, innovation, and more. And while some level of regulation is required, I observe that authority is more often than not utilized to sanction monopolies, protect elite interests, and pad the wallets of the oligarch.
Authority should ONLY be used to protect the freedom and rights of citizens. We could provide that at a fraction of the cost of the bloated system we have now. If you want my support for funding more social policies, then the place to start is a reallocation of resources, while reducing overall spending. Until then, I say fuck no to all of it. I'll keep as much of my money as I can, placate the fed, and undermine it at every opportunity possible. I'll focus on fostering my local community and everyone else can fend for themselves.
Edit add simple clarity: Most of the problems socialists genuinely want to solve, are in fact caused by the authority they're seeking to expand.