There seems to be some similarities between Marxism and Machiavelli's Tyrannical Asian Rotating Officials Model of Sovereignty as compared to the European Catholic Subsidiarity Aristocratic Model of Sovereignty. Asian Confucianism seems to be closer to the less tyrannical European Aristocratic Model than the Asian one.

1. Equality, 2. Fraternity, 3. Liberty the call of the French Revolution has become DEI (DIE) Diversity, Equality, Inclusivity, and is the bait and switch of the Marxist power elites such as Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, Engels, Luxemburg, Gramsci, many others. Dostoevsky, Solzenitzyn, Burnham, Mitrokin, Bezmenov, and others have warned about the subtle dangers of Marxist propaganda and tactics.

1. Equality- Equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome, or is there some benefit in aristocracy, as a specialist training ground of cultural leadership, a pillar against the storm. All regimes reward loyalty and punish disloyalty, perhaps some are less loyal to experiential subjective cultural truth than others. At any rate equality seems to be the Marxist instantiation of the concept.

2. Fraternity- How do Marxist's instantiate fraternity?

3. Liberty- In Western Marxism freedom tends to be instantiated in nihilistic terms to deconstruct Traditionalism and to destabilize. John Stewart Mill's nihilistic concept "free so long as your freedom doesn't restrict the freedom of others" seems to be quoted often by Woke/ Liberal/ Left/ Marxist/ Socialists as opposed to Aristotle's concept of of freedom by virtuous principles. Dostoevsky himself points to proto-Marxist's as nihilistic. Others see Marxist's as creating scarcity, nihilism, poverty, meaninglessness, hopelessness.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates encourages 1. questioning of the current state of affairs, (essentially deconstructing by questioning the state- Socrates was ridiculed by some conservatives perhaps for always asking 'why', like a four year old) and 2. that philosophers should become rulers or rulers should become philosophers (academic philosophers shouldn't become rulers as they are grounded in abstraction and rulers need to live in the real world).

Some disagreed with Socrates and said you can destroy anything by asking enough questions, because it's harder to create, but life is better than death, so leaders should try to create rather than destroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_(classical)

Orwell's 1984 according to Jordan Peterson says that the point of totalitarianism is to deny experiential truth, 4 is 5, and to re-educate and kill any deniers.

Where does this happen in our world? What are you not allowed to say? Why aren't we allowed to say it?

I disagree with Indyvidual, “natural attrition” is too slow, try to be humane but firm, we can't allow academic zealots to lead us into darkness.

As for the flat tax, it would help to repair innovation and entrepreneurial acumen and create excess rather than scarcity. Reducing red tape would be useful here too. Too much caution creates scarcity, too little caution can also be dangerous, but the excess can be worth it. Internal free trade can create freedom with strong borders.