Whats some of your favorite center right literature? I’m trying to strengthen my library.
>another false flag thread
>>25348809I am unironically center right and was wondering if anyone had some reads concerning classical liberalism.
>>25348715I don't like his opinions on women but I guess picrel
>>25348820alexis de toqueville's ancien regime and the revolution and democracy in america are classical liberalismcamus's the rebel is pretty centrist too
>>25348715I've settled on a mostly center right political position I think but I can't point to any one work that would communicate it well. Most of my political growth has been from learning and internalizing specific facts and personal experience. 15 minutes of reading about the fiscal state of this country and its near future trajectory, combined with some basic economic education is probably the most important part. We're unironically being crushed by welfare programs (not that I support cutting them much).
>>25348715Great. More toilet paper to wipe my ass with.
>>25348941puerile
>>25348941Damn, wrong pic?
>>25348809Meds
>>25348715If you want anything else beyond libertarian books and classical liberal ones I'd suggest : >Hegel's philosophy of rightsessential if you want to understand the reason behine statist liberalism>Stirner the ego and its own (as long as you read it as a critique of modernity)Useful to go beyond the traditional moral framework superseding the political divide>Raymond Aron democracy and totalitarism (or any of his other books)The danger of totalitarian ideological systems>Pierre Manent Introduction to political philosophySimilar to above; but also goes in deeper on why liberalism works well>Why not capitalism (dont remember author)Talks about how socialism must be seen under its worse angle, rather than presuming an ideal one. And that, capitalism, for all its critiques, can manage really well even under the worse possibilities>Kolakowsky how to be socialist liberal and conservativeMore or less a pragmatic understanding of why each is important in modern society and represent different yet reconcilable things>Fukuyama the end of historySimilar to Hegel's work but much easier to access. It explains why statist liberalism constitutes the "best" (as in most adapted) system for humans You can also read any works done by the new intellectuals which Deleuze critiqued given that their whole shtick is "waa waaa I shouldnt have joined the maoist during 68' it fucked my career waaa waaaa'. Then you also have the economic shills like the op but 90% of it is astoundingly retarded>>25348919If your opinion comes from 15 minutes of analysis maybe it's not the most educated and it might be too early to classify yourself as X category
>hegel
>>25348974>capitalism, for all its critiques, can manage really well even under the worse possibilitiesYou know something is pure ass propaganda written by the most comfortable beneficiaries of a system when it is myopic enough to completely ignore it's victims.
>>25348952You must be new here. Lurk moar.
>>25349068>the most comfortable beneficiaries of a system when it is myopic enough to completely ignore it's victims.that's literally all of socialist literature. >just destroy every government in the world with violent revolution and all of the people who oppose you and we can be happy!
>>25349068Capitalism is still here. Whatever happened to communism?
>>25348846This book was disappointing to me. He came across as a very weak thinker. And from what I've since heard of his economic work, he was somewhat regressive in that field.
>>25349068>posted the fat guy on his device while watching netflix and eating big macs.That's anons argument. Even if it doesn't work perfectly (it doesn't) its a million times better than if socialism doesn't work perfectly. You would be forced to work, starved and then thrown in a mass grave instead of posting. But please explain how you are a victim or it victimized others. You can have plenty of justified criticism of capitalism, but it victimizing people more than plausible alternatives is nonsense. Or do you mean colonialism and imperialism and slavery and somehow think capitalism is a prerequisite for that?
>>25349608>You would be forced to work, starved and then thrown in a mass grave instead of posting.And there we have it. The myopia at full display. It's no wonder that the fat guy on his device watching Netflix and eating big Mac's cannot comprehend what's happening beyond his own goon cave. They have to invent the most insanely hellish fantasies about socialism just so it can compete with the very real hellscape of Capitalism. >Or do you mean colonialism and imperialism and slavery and somehow think capitalism is a prerequisite for that?Historically speaking, they are different sides of the same dice.
"Center right" is an absolutely hysterical way to describe yourself for anyone under the age of 50. Pleading for Marxists to like you while still holding on to a shred of sanity only makes sense if you're old and craven or in some way attached to the Marxist establishment; either because you're a sodomite or married to a migrant etc.
>>25348715Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics - George Reisman>https://cdn.mises.org/Capitalism%20A%20Treatise%20on%20Economics_3.pdf
>>25349729>Marxist establishmentRetard alert
>>25349739>Procapitalist economic thought and economic thought as such are essentially synonymous. The substance of both is to be found in the same two main sources, namely, the writings of the British (and French) classical economists and the Austrian neoclassical economists. >All other schools of economic thought are essentially either just prescientific gropings or nothing more than misguided criticisms of the positive truths established by the classical and Austrian schools>All other schools of socialist thought are essentially either just prescientific gropings or nothing more than misguided criticisms of the positive truths established by the Marxist schoolsmisesian lolberts are mentally ill
>>25348715no one but communists would learn anything new from this.
>>25349816>Marxist trannies are mentally ill.Ftfy
>>25349816>Procapitalist economic thought and economic thought as such are essentially synonymous. He is right. Economics as a field basically presumes the ruling class status quo as a fact of life. Which is why it's useless as a criticism for systems that critique the ruling status quo. Which is precisely why retards who go, "muh communism is debunked by economics 101" are fundamentally retarded and they'll never get the point.
>>25349926There is no "point" in stating 2+2=5
>>25349934>He says as he makes the most pointless response imaginableAll anti-socialists can ever conceive as a counter argument is "nuh huh, you wrong me right". This is what happens when your world view is logically incorrect and completely indefensible. Sophistry becomes the order of the day.
>>25349942Anon the reason communism is "debunked by economics 101" has absolutely nothing to do with "presumes the ruling class status quo as a fact of life".The only thing it does is observe the subjective value of free trade relationships, which immediately completely fucking destroys marxism, any concept of who deserves the means of productions, etc etc.So marxists are left stating that 2+2=5 and claiming everyone else is just too stupid to understand how correct 2+2=5 actually is. You are a clown anon, with a big red nose.
>>25349947This comment is a precise demonstration of what I posted here>>25349926The anti-socialist must presume that the dogmas economy is built on are a fact of life, which he equates to self evident statements like 2+2=4. Because in the mind of the anti-socialist the ruling status quo IS an immutable self evident fact of reality.And thus he can only reject socialism on the faulty ground that he himself built out of thin air. As I said, retards going "muh communism is debunked cuz economics 101" are retarded.
>>25349947>>25349959 (cont.)If the anti-socialist had any historic education whatsoever, he would have known that the status quo he defends as "2+2=4" was not that relevant as recently as 1000 years ago.
>>25349959Again, no lolThe 2+2=4 fact has nothing to do with the ruling class, this is some fanfiction you need to add to my post to not appear as the clown you are. This "faulty ground" is nowhere in my post, basically, a strawman is your ONLY argument.Prove me wrong, tell me the solution of the economic calculation problem under marxism, prove to me that 2+2 can equal 5.
>>25349947> any concept of who deserves the means of productionsNta. So you have no ethical justification about who should own the means of production? So, in theory, you wouldn’t mind if they were owned as commons, publicly, and/or state owned?
>>25349964>he would have known that the status quo he defends as "2+2=4" was not that relevant as recently as 1000 years ago.You are indeed correct, the status quo was not as relevant 1000 years ago, which is why I do not defend it. If you had the education required to read and interpret a simple post, you could see that I do, indeed, not defend this magical ruling status quo you allude to.
>>25348715>CTRL+F distributism>0 resultsNGMI
>>25349972Distributism tends between far right and center right. Thats a belief I hold. You also could've just posted the Servile State.
>>25349968>So you have no ethical justification about who should own the means of production?Of course I doThe righful owner would be the person who bought them from someone who made them, or the person who made them if he didn't sell them away. This is because private property is the solution to conflict where the direction of item x can only be decided by its rightful owner, its rightful owner being either the homesteader or anyone who bought from the homesteader down the line.>they were owned as commons, publicly, and/or state ownedI would, because public property is a contradiction in terms. For starters the state cannot homestead anything, or buy anything, trough legitimate means. Only trough robbery, which makes public property itself illegitimate.Furthermore it contraddicts the very basic of property, as if both Tom and Bob own a stick communally, it cannot be easily decided who gets to choose the direction of the item, if its used to hunt or to fish. As such, public property has failed at the most basic task property needs to fulfill.
>>25349974>As such, public property has failed at the most basic task property needs to fulfill.Mind you, this is EASILY provable by seeing how the average public owned enterprise operates. There are exceptions, as with any average, but on average its an absolute disaster.
>>25349926>>25349959>>25349964It never ceases to amaze me that the Marxists were BTFOed so hard by economics that their only recourse is to dismiss the entire field as dogmatic pseudoscience, all to defend their dogmatic belief in interventionism.
>>25349974> The righful owner would be the person who bought them from someone who made them, or the person who made them if he didn't sell them away. Fair enough. I wanted to ask because the way you wrote it made it sound like you had no foundation to property appropriation.> would, because public property is a contradiction in terms. For starters the state cannot homestead anything, or buy anything, trough legitimate means. Only trough robbery, which makes public property itself illegitimate.What about multiple people? Not an institution, but actual individuals. Is it possible for multiple people to homestead the same land or object? For example, suppose a village rests near a lake. The lake and village was separated by a thick layer of foliage, brush, and bramble, still navigable but requiring some light exertion to push through. During the initial settlement, a single villager would make their way to the lake, fish to obtain their family’s weekly about, then return home. The next day another villager went, and so on. Throughout the weeks, through no consciously coordinated action, the villagers constructed a navigable trail to the lake. Now, who owns the path? Does the first user, despite seemingly abandoning the path for a time after returning with his fish? Is it constantly being abandoned and reappropriated? If so, then could someone set up a toll booth in the path?> Furthermore it contraddicts the very basic of property, as if both Tom and Bob own a stick communally, it cannot be easily decided who gets to choose the direction of the item, if its used to hunt or to fish. As such, public property has failed at the most basic task property needs to fulfill.Now, it looks like you’ve jumped from ethically allocated to efficiently allocated. What business is it yours how Tom and Bob handle the stick? Perhaps the stick was a bequest by their mother meant to teach the boys how to share. I half kid, but still don’t see why, in theory, common property cannot be homesteaded or gifted or at the very least jointly handled by the owners.
>>25349926>Economics as a field basically presumes the ruling class status quo as a fact of life.that's not a bad thing someone has to study this shit brobut going "only people like thomas sowell and ayn rand know the truth of economics" in the preface doesn't bode well for the rest of your book, literal cult shitthey even have the "academics are bad" discourse of their own lol https://mises.org/mises-daily/economics-vocation-or-professionmises bros are literally just marxists but on the entrepreneur's side
>>25349967>The 2+2=4 fact has nothing to do with the ruling class,>Literally defends the economic reality as posited by the ruling class>tell me the solution of the economic calculation problem >Even uses ruling class derived NPC arguments for his defence. I will repeat. In the mind of the anti-socialist the ruling status quo is as self evident as 2+2=4 because he accepts the ruling status quo as immutable part of reality. I must also mention here the the anti-socialist must invoke economic calculation problem because he disingenuously intends to equate communism with central planning. What is not mentioned here is Capitalism's absolute failure with the calculation problem which leads to piss poor distribution at the core of the misery we see in the world today. Capitalism is a system which would sooner give the last glass of milk on earth to a rich person's cat than a poor person's starving child. Is THIS the so called perfect economic calculation that anti-socialists speak of?>>25349971>you could see that I do, indeed, not defend this magical ruling status quo you allude to.Every "communism is debunked by economics 101" argument is quite literally just that. A defence of the ruling class based on the ideology of the ruling class. It's a circular argument on the same tier as "Democracy is debunked by king's divine right to rule". Using the word "magical" won't change the fact that reality as it exists today has rulers.
>>25349124His review of Harry Potter was retroactively refuted by C. S. Lewis.
>>25350011>BTFOed so hard by economics that their only recourse is to dismiss the entire field as dogmatic pseudoscienceNever called it a pseudo-science. Only recognised the simple fact that the presumptions of economics are build on political ideology of the ruling class in every era. It's sad that anti-socialists have to resort to this kind of strawmanning sophistry because their shitty arguments get called out.
>>25350012>What about multiple people?The idea of multiproperty, as for example, a public company with shareholders but also on a general example like yours, is indeed a very controversial topic among austrian economists. Usually, it is expected for a contract to be made that will define the direction of X going forwards, with clear rules, but many disagree that this should even be possible following property theory.>the villagers constructed a navigable trail to the lake. Now, who owns the path? In the case you considered, I'd say the path remains unowned, as there was no engineering of the action, or if it owned, the freedom to use it is implied by the complete lack of signs that indicate otherwise or boundaries. You could technically set up a booth, but you would find that the villagers sidestep it making your investment come at a complete loss, with the added risk of the villagers ostracising you from the community for being an ass (which is their right, as they are free to deny their services and goods to a man they consider not apt for their societyBut ideally such a libertarian society would be organized trough private cities (Hoppe makes a good case for it) as such these matters would be handled by the city and founded in a voluntary and non involuntary way (libertarians have nothing against organising in communities, they take issue with the forceful nature of the state, which trough citizenship etc is basically enforced from birth)>>25350015Thomas Sowell is good as an introductionAyn Rand is... questionable. She is alright, but fundamentally misunderstands the origin and purpose of property, instead she venerates businessmen as gods rather than simply the inevitable product of a free economy. She is good but I wouldn't take her as my number 1 source on anything
>>25349676>They have to invent the most insanely hellish fantasies about socialism just so it can compete with the very real hellscape of Capitalism.idk man, the Soviet Union seemed really fucking shitty compared to any capitalist country.
>>25350015>that's not a bad thing someone has to study this shit broOf course not. Economics is a worthwhile thing to study inorder to understand how production and distribution are managed in the existing systems. But one must also acknowledge the ever changing nature of economic relationships based on historic material conditions. Something anti-socialists fail to do when they presume that the current economic status quo is an eternal immutable truth. When the very basic conclusions of economics 101 are questionable at best
>>25350028>Literally defends the economic reality as posited by the ruling classThis is your mistakeYou believe that something that is inherent in economic interaction "is posited by the ruling class", so when I don't defend the ruling class but I do defend this economic interaction even 1000 years ago, you are utterly confused.>because he disingenuously intends to equate communism with central planning>Is THIS the so called perfect economic calculation that anti-socialists speak of?>Every "communism is debunked by economics 101" argument is quite literally just that. A defence of the ruling classI can't help but notice you have not explained how you would avoid itIt would seem like I have struck a nerve too, kekPlease explain how you would avoid central planning and the economic calculation problem without ending up in capitalismhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzHA3KLL7Ho
>>25350039>idk man, the Soviet Union seemed really fucking shitty compared to any capitalist countrySoviet Union fared better than most capitalist countries that existed in history and which still exist today. It's only mogged by western capitalist countries whose capitalist systems were pretty much build over a course of centuries of colonialism with them at the top of the food chain. Even then those western capitalisms were hellscapes of many people of the lowest economic classes whose conditions did not improve until widespread implementation of socialism in 20th century post WW2
>>25350028>which leads to piss poor distribution at the core of the miseryAlso, this is hilariousFirst you assume the the objective of economic calculation is equality (?), then about the poor piss distribution being the core of the problems (which is objectively wrong as poverty has done nothing than decrease, so inequality is not the core of misery)This is also easily refuted by proving that we are born naked, thus, poor. So no system forces misery on people, that's the DEFAULT state of mankind. What ought to be explained is wealth, plenty, which humans have created and have achieved at record levels now, under capitalism.
>>25350044>but I do defend this economic interaction even 1000 years ago, you are utterly confused.Except that interaction did not exist. Which is exactly why I point out that if anti-socialists had any knowledge of history they would know that the economic status quo they are trying to defend as a fact of life did not exist 1000 years ago. I am getting the hint here that anti-socialists are too low iq to comprehend that the systems they defend are nothing more than extant social relations. Which is why they can cook up absurdities like a mediaeval peasant talking about "economic calculation problem". >can't help but notice you have not explained how you would avoid itI would've formulated a response if the ruling class status quo that you are so intent on defending had a solution to this. This is another instance of anti-socialist sophistry btw. Instead of answering my point about equating communism with central planning or the absolute failure of Capitalism to solve economic calculation problem, the anti-socialist must deflect to crap like "struck a nerve" and "you have not explained how you would avoid it" Because "nuh-uh" is the highest form of oCounter argument an anti-socialist has.
>>25350035>Never called it a pseudo-science.So does economics accurately reflect reality or not?
>>25350056>First you assume the the objective of economic calculation is equalityI know for a FACT that the purpose of ruling class status quo defending ideological conundrums like the one you posit is definitely not achieving equality. In fact the very point of posing questions like the "economic calculation problem" is to maintain the inequal status quo. Notice here how the solution of this "economic calculation problem" MUST be capitalism and the maintenence of the power and wealth of the status quo. But to entertain this ruling class propaganda nonsense nonsense I will use Wikipedia itself.>In his first article, Mises described the nature of the price system under capitalism and described how individual subjective values (while criticizing other theories of value) are translated into the objective information necessary for rational allocation of resources in societyNotice how "rational" allocation of resources is not defined in any meaningful way. Because in the ideology of the ruling class. Whatever maintains their power becomes the "rational" itself. >This is also easily refuted by proving that we are born naked, thus, poorThis is too retarded even by anti-socialist standards. Not worth a response. >plenty, which humans have created and have achieved at record levels now, under capitalismYes. Over the back of others who have not.
>>25350071>So does economics accurately reflect reality or not?It only reflects reality insofar as it describes the extant human relations of production that exist within an era and place. It's certainly not a natural science like physics with immutable laws about reality independent of the social human element. Like anti-socialists make it out to be when they say "economics 101 debunks communism"
>>25350069>Except that interaction did not existSee what I mean? You are a clown. >the economic status quo Nobody is talking about the "status quo" but you, retard. I'm talking about the most basic interaction, the same way the price of a hot dog is decided now, is how the price of a cow was decided back then 2000 years ago. The same way: according to the buyer and the seller's subjective evaluation of it. This has NOTHING to do with the elite, the status quo, the system, or WHATEVER THE FUCK you are going on about. >the systems they defendI do not defend the current system, I've said it 20 times already, you keep fighting with a strawman and losing>Which is why they can cook up absurdities like a mediaeval peasant talking about "economic calculation problem".Who the fuck said medieval paesants discussed the economic calculation problem? link to me the post where someone said that.Anon what the FUCK are you talking about? There is NOTHING coherent here in what you just said, it's all retarded.>I would've formulated a response if the ruling class status quo that you are so intent on defending had a solution to this. It does, it follows the profitable path. You assume the answer is "wrong" because you assume equality should be the standard of result, and you've decided capitalism does a bad job (which you didn't prove, you just declared), even though I'm much closer to a modern millionaire than a subsistence farmer in my way of life, and as such any argument that capitalism failed to equalize is fundamentally immediately broken.
>>25350069>if anti-socialists had any knowledge of history they would know that the economic status quo they are trying to defend as a fact of life did not exist 1000 years ago.Why is this relevant? Most other sciences did not exist 1000 years ago, does that mean they are also fictions of the ruling class? Is germ theory bunk because 1000 years ago it didn't exist? 1000 years ago people lived in abject poverty because they were ignorant of the principles of economics and didn't know how to allocate scarce resources to their most value-productive ends. >the absolute failure of Capitalism to solve economic calculation problemCapitalism solves it with free market price signals. Something communists are incapable of without contradicting themselves.
>>25348715Any defense of capitalism isn't right or left, it's LIBERAL.They have always stood for their "free markets" and magical invisible hand making everything right (They conveniently ignore the capitalist who uses his gains to monopolize and find a way to blame the state that enabled him)"Center right" makes your IDpol warrior heart feel better, but market fundamentalism is just right-liberalism. Though better than being a monarchist, your being a liberal makes you rightwing. And a cultist for cash. The root of all evil.
>>25350076>I know for a FACT that the purpose of ruling class status quo defending ideological conundrums like the one you posit is definitely not achieving equality.Of course its not, that would be retardedDo you think it as an own?Also again with the ruling class lol, just answer the questions>Notice here how the solution of this "economic calculation problem" MUST be capitalism >Notice how the solution to 2+2 MUST be 4, and when I say 5 EVERYONE LAUGHSYes anon.I noticed.>Notice how "rational" allocation of resources is not defined in any meaningful wayIt's the self serving profit of the one who builds the railway.He will try to maximize his benefit.> Not worth a response. You don't have a response. You genuinely believe capitalism magically creates poverty (you yourself said so, by saying that it is the cause of misery).Thus you must believe misery did not exist before capitalism, or else you would objectively be wrong (which you are)>Yes. Alright, so you were wrong>Over the back of others who have not.TRUE, welfare recipients and commies are holding everyone back
>>25350092>They conveniently ignore the capitalist who uses his gains to monopolize and find a way to blame the state that enabled himThe rockefellers were already losing market shares BEFORE anti trust lawsHarmful monopolies do indeed create because of the state using violence to enforce them, patents, IP and copyright law being the prime example of the state just handing monopolies left and right.
>>25350080>It only reflects reality insofar as it describes the extant human relations of production that exist within an era and place.So when does the law of diminishing marginal utility stop being true?
>>25350051>Soviet Union fared better than most capitalist countries that existed in history and which still exist todayhilariously delusional. I'd bet my bottom dollar that most of these "capitalist" countries would better categorized as feudal shitholes (not that these types of economic taxonomies are anything other than bullshit, but I know committed Marxists like yourself are obsessed with them). I also doubt that most of the developed imperialist countries you're describing have had up to 8% of their population incarcerated in concentration camps (i'll grant you Malaysia, but that's an exception that proves the rule).
>>25350097The Pinkertons and cops that the state broke the Second Amendment for also did a number on the unionist movement. If not for that we would have worker owned businesses exclusively. A dozen Mondragons acros the country would be better than billionaire conglomerates woning everything.But what Libertarian sees this? Serious question.
>>25350115*Across*owning(Hopped up on caffein atm)
>>25350115The pinkertons without the state have no power, you can just shoot them on personal defense principlesThe monopoly of violence from which all other monopolies arise is held by the state.
>>25350121>The pinkertons without the state have no power,Originally hired with private money, they have no power without the state? This is why I mention the cops. And The 2nd Amendment also forbids the secret services and all the standing armies. A real shame we didn't shoot them all. The power of money corrupted them so much.State-capitalism is the worst.
>>25350037 The idea of multiproperty, as for example, a public company with shareholders but also on a general example like yours, is indeed a very controversial topic among austrian economists.I don’t see why this is the case at all. For multiproperty that is. I think it adequately answers Locke’s labor mixing requirement for acquisition. I personally define homesteading as “incorporating into an agent’s ongoing project” because of the various problems with labor mixing. My problem with publicly traded companies is that they are fundamentally creatures of the state and the “nexus of contract” explanation can’t provide limited liability nor explain how corporations arise by such a method if currently a board of directors arise first, incorporate, who then go off to sell shares, all while operating under the delusion the shareholders somehow own the corporation, when it seems more like to me corporate property exists almost in this third space akin to medieval church property. > In the case you considered, I'd say the path remains unowned, as there was no engineering of the action,By engineering of action, do you mean conscious acquisitional frame of mind? Like you need to intend to acquire something? For the most part, it won’t be possible to literally know what’s going on in their. In my opinion, the next best option is judging by what a reasonable observer would interpret the homesteader’s action as? I think, that the villages pounding through the trail for weeks, months, years, there is a definite sense that access to the path is a right granted to any of the villagers in the community. I don’t see why you need to have a frame of mind that says “I need to own this” to acquire property, but framing it “I need to use this every Monday indefinitely” is insufficient. Why is time indexed use not allowed to acquire a property interest?> You could technically set up a booth, but you would find that the villagers sidestep it making your investment come at a complete loss, with the added risk of the villagers ostracising you from the community for being an assSo someone from a separate village on the other side of the lake, a person who expended no labor to the trail’s creation, has never used the trail, makes their way over to the trail and is able to set up shop and prevent access to the lake by the trail laboriously created by the original villagers? This appears ethical to you? > But ideally such a libertarian society would be organized trough private cities (Hoppe makes a good case for it) as such these matters would be handled by the cityI’m a left-libertarian, I know. I’ve yet to read his Democracy: The God that Failed, and I plan in reading that along with Elinor’s Ostrom’s Governing the Commons see if she answers some of Hoppe’s objections (Hoppe’s critique, from what I’ve gathered, seems to apply for toward top-down representative democracy instead of a bottom-up commonly managed firm)
>>25348974>If your opinion comes from 15 minutes of analysis maybe it's not the most educated and it might be too early to classify yourself as X categoryThe fiscal situation, which is the only thing I meant to fall under the 15 minute thing, is "a crazy guy is about to rape your daughter" tier unambiguous and immediate. The facts do not leave room for subtlety. We do not have the money or potential tax base to expand or even maintain the welfare state.
