Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
My point being that any restrictions placed on a discussion are placed there by you.
|
I don't know how you came to that conclusion - I'm expressly arguing against the restriction of intentional compromise for the sake of compromise.
Quote:
As you can see, in this case, you might possibly be able to get some of what you want in a flat tax system.
For example (and this is just an example, I don't want to use this thread to debate a flat tax):
Let's say, the flat tax is progressive (which is entirely possible--just because the word "flat" is in there doesn't mean it is a proportional or regressive system).
Let's say the "rich" pay the same amount they are paying now. You could at least be happy with the fact they don't pay less in taxes.
Let's say, as is the case in many countries that instituted a flat tax, government revenue goes up and some of that extra money is earmarked to fund a few social programs that you really believe in. As revenues go up, the "flat tax" goes down (which is something I want). We could negotiate that it doesn't go down as much as I want to help fund some of your programs. You get extra money. The rich still pay a buttload in taxes. I get a flat tax. And, hopefully, the flat tax begins to go down (What I want).
So, in this case, we both give a little and we both get a little. And, rather than remain stagnant, we have moved forward.
|
I'm not clear what I am supposed to have "gotten" from that, beyond the fact that you are presenting a discussion of the topic. What you then suggest is that we should all agree to disagree. Since this compromise you speak of is not actually going to be implemented anywhere, you are ultimately arguing that we all disagree too much and we need to start agreeing by chipping off bits and pieces of what we each feel is correct in order to reach that agreement. An agreement that we all disagree which can then be used to end the disagreement. To end the discussion. That is most certainly NOT moving forward.
Quote:
|
I don't know, I look at it this way. You get from the discussion what you give to the discussion. If the only thing you bring to the table is hardline stances that aren't negotiable, that is what you are going to get in return.
|
I can repeat myself for you: I am flexible, all you need to do is convince me that I am wrong. I am not flexible in the sense that I will accept anything you have to say if I do not think it is right. Why should I? What is there to gain in a discussion by agreeing to something I know is wrong?
Quote:
|
Personally, I would rather get some of what I want than none of what I want.
|
Again: what is it that you think you are "getting" here? At the end of the day, TFP is not setting policy. We can compromise until the sun goes out and its not going to change the law. You get nothing other than the end of a discussion.
But ultimately, what I suspected has come to pass: the Common Ground Experiment 1 Universal Healthcare thread is not what was claimed it was to be. It is nothing different than a discussion. It has been weakened because people are altering their positions on health care in order to find someone else on TFP to support them (which I find unsettling) but ultimately, even those unnecessarily weakened positions are simply launching pads for additional discussion. Maybe if everyone weakens their position enough, or one position finds a small majority of support which everyone must then accept (or risk being accused of being stubborn and inflexible), you will reach this final solution, this common ground. But to what purpose? All you have succeeded in accomplishing is the blending of opinion into a singular viewpoint. Now what?