What if We Actually Taxed the Rich? | Robert Reich

Maj John Bell - Thank you for that.
I agree: words have meaning and that meaning matters a great deal in order to have any sort of understanding.

For instance, I understand my personal views to be "liberal" and based largely on the philosophy of Liberalism, which is codified in our system of law and generally serves as the basis for modern western societies. I recognize that "liberal" views are held by the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, though some tend to refer to their views as "conservative" today, while not necessarily espousing the views of Conservatism. I also recognize that "progressive" views, while including some common basis with liberal views, are staunchly illiberal in many regards. I believe that it is the distinction of those who hold illiberal, "progressive" views as being separate from those who adhere to "liberal" values which is largely lost in lay terms of discussing our political landscape today.

That suits progressives just fine, I'd imagine, as it artificially inflates their numbers and, thus, their influence. It also alienates people who otherwise have much more in common with those who might consider themselves "conservative," in terms of ideals, and renders them susceptible to in-group thinking and getting caught up in following along where the progressives mislead. Please keep in mind that I am considering this from the perspective of the average citizen and not politicians, whom we can fairly reliably count on as being bad-faith actors in the political process.

People can and do call themselves whatever they like, whether or not they understand the true context of the labels which they are using. In most cases today, it seems that they do not.

In terms of my own reference to "exploitation," I meant it as a shorthand in reference to a much broader confluence of factors which influence the relationship between employer and employee, and which have a cumulative effect of creating circumstances under which the terms of the relationship naturally benefit one party's interests far more than the other's. This certainly exists and we would all likely recognize it if and when we saw it in action. I also did not mean it applied broadly to all employment relations.

I fully appreciate and thank you for your pointing out the context of my usage as it has given me cause to reflect on it and consider what it is that I was truly trying to convey, as well as how that communication is summarily ineffective due to lacking the necessary depth.

What you say on a flat rate system, particularly pertinent with doing away with a large portion of the bureaucracy which supports the current system, seems to have some merit. Yours is the first explanation of such an idea which I've seen which actually deals with poverty.

SSG John Gillespie - I also consider myself a liberal. But I also believe the modern usage of "liberal" has very little to do with my understanding of modern/neo-liberalism.

Classical liberalism (my liberalism) is a political ideology that favors the protection of individual liberty and economic freedom by limiting government power. "He who governs less governs best."

Neo-liberalism, in my view, is all about the expansion of the government footprint in our lives.
-It is not good enough for the playing field to be level. The outcome must be leveled.
-A human right no longer requires mere tolerance. It requires involuntary subsidy from others.
-It is no longer good enough to "live and let live." Anything less than a full-throated endorsement is "opposition" and must be crushed, by the police powers of the state if possible; if not, by ANY means necessary.

I'd like to comment on another part of your response:
"In terms of my own reference to "exploitation," I meant it as a shorthand in reference to a much broader confluence of factors which influence the relationship between employer and employee, and which have a cumulative effect of creating circumstances under which the terms of the relationship naturally benefit one party's interests far more than the other's.

If you look at the symbiotic relationship between the wealthy and the NOT wealthy. On an individual basis, the individual benefit to the NOT wealthy, far exceeds the contribution of the NOT wealthy to the individual benefit of the wealthy. The wealthy becomes wealthy when they are able to harvest a small bit from all who benefit from the financial relationship whether the relationship is that of employer-employee or provider-customer.

SFC John D. those Democrats who say pay your fair share are purposely not economics Majors or in the case of stupid aoc, she has been expunged of all our economic common sense.. that's why I call her stupid AOC because she has been brainwashed by somebody along the way. Democrats are just lying to the public. That's why I always put President Clinton accomplishments to refute what they have to say and they have no ass left after I post something like this.

I bet you stupid President Biden and his administration will not have anything like this to show in history once they are out of office but President Clinton has a lot of good accomplishments. We could forget about Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment, he actually had good business sense because he had a master's in Business Administration not a lot agree like President Biden did but not much else...

https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Cpl Vic Burk SFC John D. SSG John Gillespie Maj John Bell LTC David Brown LTC Trent Klug

Maj John Bell - Then the basis of our political values is largely the same. Thank you for giving me another perspective to consider on the subject of economic "exploitation" as well. What you say here may wind up changing my thinking on the issue.

Regarding Neo-liberalism, this may just be splitting hairs but it seems to me that this ideology, as expressed in policy through our government, has more in common with Progressivism than Liberalism. Regardless, I reject it as well as Progressivism on the grounds that the ideology includes a right of the powerful to fundamentally intrude into the lives of anyone - to take on the yoke of a tyrant as some intrinsic "good." Sorry, but that's not a right anyone has or should be allowed to claim.

It can only be a fundamental disrespect of others which drives that attitude towards domineering over them. Once you grant yourself that exception to the freedom of another, where does it end? The only logical conclusion to that line which I can see is totalitarian dictatorship.