[TRG] On Taxes and the SFP
J.A. Lake
So taxes are back in the news!
Naturally this has prompted questions about what the SFP and BSP plan to do about those taxes, against which we have railed for quite some time (go ahead and click different words for examples! That's how many articles I could find in a few minutes of searching, from BSP and SFP). There have been discussions on our forums about taxes, the Revolutionary Committee has discussed taxes quite frequently, and I know I've personally exchanged many PMs on the topic of taxes and the SFP's positions regarding lowering taxes.
Contrary to the depiction of the SFP in the aforementioned article, there is little to no unity of opinion, and certainly no directive from above on how we should think about taxes. Opinions on taxes range from raising them higher still to lowering them below their previous rate. Some of us want no taxes, some of us want max taxes, and some of us live somewhere in between.
Much like that droplet of dye in the larger bottle of water, our disunity (however well-intentioned) means we are politically unreliable on this issue, as on others. This isn't meant to be an insult to the anarchist nature of the party. This is a statement of fact.
That brings us to the topic of our ironclad, lockstep relationship with the Black Sheep Party. That... does not exist in the real eworld. We're more like friends with benefits- we chill, and when the need arises we help each other out.
Will taxes create that need?
My guess is they will not. The SFP has entertained some ideas that would involve maintenance of the tax rate as-is, and has even launched a discussion or two on revising our anti-high tax stance. Unlike the Black Sheep, there is little in the way of consensus here.
The reasons behind this are many. A common thread is that few people seem to believe we can lower taxes anymore. As each month passes, resolution wanes. Goals have changed from lowering taxes outright to learning to live with astronomical taxes until they're allowed to go back to a lower rate. Some now advocate raising taxes, as I previously mentioned. Some may call this evolution, but it's a kind of regressive evolution that invalidates our claims to be revolutionary. We're closer to social democrats than anarchists.
Is this bad? It depends on context and your definition of bad. It's a core tenet of the SFP to allow free thinking and nearly-total autonomy among its members, even those in Congress. This is excellent insofar as it allows for free and easy exchange of ideals, however one could also argue that in the realm of e-politics and the condensed amount of time available for the political process that the disunity that makes the SFP great also hobbles the SFP, politically speaking. If it takes time to unify behind an idea through discussion and debate, the time for our input could be past by the time we reach that point of agreement.
Look at taxes, for example. It's been months since the tax hike and we still are in discussions about what our positions are on high taxes.
Naturally there will be the argument that the "SFP has no party line." Perhaps that is not always for the best, for many of the reasons outlined above. Perhaps it would be better if we had a few positions we agreed as a Party to take beforehand, so when it comes up we can respond more or less immediately, as a united front.
Such positions would have the added benefits of preventing too much drift on key points of policy on the Party-wide scale, as evidenced in our positional evolution on taxes and dictatorship in the past few months.
There is the SFP's Party Program. It does say that we will seek to abolish the defensive dictatorship (among other unaccomplished and forgotten goals). We have backed down from that position, to the point that one of our own is now seeking to run for Dictator.
If a so-called Party Line were to be established, we have to make it binding in a way that the Party Program has now demonstrably failed to be. That is of course fundamentally at odds with any notion of autonomy and anarchism. Perhaps a happy medium can be found? That will, paradoxically, require some discussion.
We have to ask ourselves though: if we want to hit a target would it do to all be facing separate directions?
I can already see the criticism coming. "You're so good at pointing out problems, Lake, but where are your solutions?"
What solutions can I offer? Inside the SFP we have weaved a tangled web of anarchic free will, conformity, e-US-Forums-metapolitical (one-T metagame) ambitions, hatred of the metagame, desire to play the metacongressional game, revolutionary thought and writing, and belief in changing the metagame from within the metagame (why not take a dump in a diaper to make the diaper less dumpy?). There's no way to change one thread to a satisfactory extent without being caught in the rest of the web.
The best solution would be a binding party program, a paradigm shift to a new mettagame (distinguished from the eUS-Forums-metagame: note the extra T), and a touch of soul-searching. We may need to step back and compare SFP of today with SFP of a year ago. Playing politics is eroding the Party and our ideals. We campaigned on lower taxes and no dictatorship, but we allow these discussions to get mired in metapolitics and shrug when they get ignored, muttering "We'll get 'em later" to ourselves.
Where is that revolutionary spirit? When did we decide to kowtow to the whims of the people we've decried as "oligarchs" and the "American Bourgeois Class"? Why is playing within the system against which we fought now a goal of the party? Why is revolting or restoring democracy not on the table unless we can push it through the many-times-damned metagame?
tl;dr- that's why the SFP can't be counted on to be 100% for lower taxes, and why the SFP is certainly not in an alliance with the Black Sheep. The SFP has vastly different views on every issue and conducts a lot of debate. Saying we're 100% for or against anything is a ridiculous assertion. Also discussed was the nature of the SFP's political iffy-ness on many issues and the drift from our Program.
Comments
This is an accurate portrait of the party. It is also waht makes the party great. I'll say it "No Party Line." You want that, go join USWP.
Who from SFP is campaigning to be Dictator? I know I am campaigning for CP, but certainly not campaigning for Dictator. If Congress overturns the Defensive Dictator rule, I will be more than happy to comply. That probably won't happen, however, so I will probably have to assume the title of Country President/Dictator. As I told you before, that is not up to whoever is elected Country President, but sometimes talking to you is like talking to a wall. You were in Congress last month and were free to open your mouth, but you chose to sit in silence. You love to complain, but never really do anything about anything. How is that "revolutionary"?
Super hot fire. He spits that.
To be truly radical Jude, you could refuse to accept the dictatorship.
That is going against a congressional law unfortunately.
Ah, damn the Congressional laws. It's just so much text on another website 😛
but as CP you could lead the nation and convince everyone why dictator is bad 🙂 and then congress would banish the dictatorship!
"...sometimes talking to you is like talking to a wall." The Stannis avatar is working!
I could've probably put up some futile posts, sure, but I also value my time a lot more than to waste it on the likes of our current metalords. My participation in Congress was more to see what kind of things go on in there, which I was not surprised to find was a lot of B.S. For the life of me I don't know what the liberals of the SFP think to accomplish there.
Complaining, critiquing, potatoes, po-tah-toes. If I don't say these things, the SFP will groupthink itself into AMP-Fed-USWP-WTP status before too long. Someone's got to hold the mirror.
The SFP hasn't sold out. The fact that we allow a divergence of opinions allows for a multitude of solutions to be considered. We need to allow differing opinions for the best ideology to be formed; however, once we define a solution it would be beneficial the Party as a whole supports that solution. We need to have not a Party line, but instead a core set of beliefs, such as how freedom in-game is directly inhibited by the Defensive Dictatorship.
I don't think we've sold out, no, but I do fear that we're looking at buyers.
We do have a core set of beliefs in the Party Program. The issue with that is we kind of forgot about it, it seems. I haven't seen it anywhere since it got published. It would probably be beneficial to send it in each Congress mass message. That is why I think a codified and party-endorsed (that is to say, the general population would endorse it, not the RC) party program that is binding in some fashion (perhaps breaking it would result in consequences of some kind, idk) is not an idea to be disposed of immediately.
It could help us. As it is, we've forgotten the program of two or so months ago and are drifting ever-rightward, in danger of becoming one of those other parties and sacrificing our spark on the altar of the metagame.
We will get them next time!
Sorry I missed this one.
It's all good, I kind of missed it too. I should've said something but it slipped my mind xD
great article
Good article, J.A.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Party Program was designed as a set of guidelines, not as a litmus test. Out of all the evolutions our party goes through, "no party line" is the one constant. I wouldn't sacrifice that for more political effectiveness. Frankly, I'm surprised you of all people have suggested this, as you're usually the first one to call out anyone advocating a compromise on our ideals for political gain (I love you for this, BTW). Abandoning this principle would be the biggest compromise of all, IMO.
While its true Israel Stevens misrepresented the so-called unity of our party voting, he does hit on the truth a bit. The fact of the matter is congressmen have voted against their personal opinion. I've never been super enthused about lowering taxes but I've voted for lowering them every time it's come up bc it was the consensus of our party. I didn't feel super strongly about it either way, so I defaulted to the party's overall feeling. Likewise, Jude has stated he sees the advantage of the DD, but is willing to support its removal of that's the will of the party. So while we do have a wide range of opinions, most of us are willing to put those aside to accomplish something for the party.
I'll also add I in no way felt like I'd be ostracized for voting a different way. It was my own decision in the end, and that's the difference that's important.
For reference, here is a copy of the current SFP Party Program:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/sfp-party-program-2547015/1/20
o7
Great job JA Lake. I'm glad you're back; keep us on our toes.