pull down to refresh
Okay I'll try to use harder words then. I don't trust your community to organize peacefully, so the state is going to disrupt those efforts until the communist threat is resolved. I don't know what that disruption looks like. It depends.
What's clear is you're going to complain about oppression regardless of what I do, so I have absolutely no incentive to hold back from any force necessary to get laissez-faire jammed into a reformed constitution reigning from coast to coast.
“I don’t trust your community to organize peacefully.”
Considering Black Americans have spent centuries organizing peacefully, I don’t know what to make of that claim.
What’s remarkable is using distrust of an entire community with a long record of peaceful organizing and advancement to justify state interference from institutions with a long record of abusing power.
Raising taxes is not peaceful.
Did Black Americans fighting in the American Revolution raise taxes? No. They fought in it.
Did Black Americans fighting for the Union in the Civil War raise taxes? No. They fought in it.
Did organizing for the 14th Amendment raise taxes? No. Black Americans organized for equal citizenship.
Did the Civil Rights Movement raise taxes? No. Black Americans organized and marched peacefully, often in the face of violence.
Did Black churches, mutual-aid societies, HBCUs, and civil-rights organizations raise taxes? No. Black Americans built institutions for themselves.
Do Black self-help scholarships and programs raise taxes? No. They use private money to help people overcome documented disadvantages.
Do corporate diversity programs raise taxes? No.
So “raising taxes is not peaceful” does not answer what we were discussing.
You need to get your voting percentage for Democrat down below 60% for me to not view you as a threat. That's the threshold.
So your argument is that when Black voters help elect Democrats who raise taxes, that taxation becomes a form of violence attributable to Black political power, and therefore our efforts to organize and advance should be thwarted.
So you’re willing to endure what you call 5–10 years of “short-term pain”, including 5%+ long-term Treasury yields, to get there.
All the while trusting this same sloppy, sprawling government to wield that power responsibly.
Yeah pretty much.
Now that I understand the arrangement, it makes even less sense on your own terms.
If laissez-faire is the goal, Black people raising private capital, funding scholarships, building institutions, and helping each other build wealth should be exactly what you want.
Instead, that’s where you want the state involved.
So this isn’t simply “leave people alone and let markets work.” You want government power used first to shape who can organize and build, then a free market afterward.
And economically, what’s the trade?
You save some amount in taxes, but still pay taxes, while accepting 5–10 years of higher rates, weaker growth, and economic pain for some future payoff you haven’t quantified.
At what point does that become a good trade?
Once again, you chose soft words. Let me translate: