| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago |
| > You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. Utter nonsense. Do you believe the European countries that provides higher education for free are manning tenure positions with slaves or robbing people at gunpoint? How come do you see public transportation services in some major urban centers being provided free of charge? How do you explain social housing programmes conducted throughout the world? Are countries with access to free health care using slavery to keep hospitals and clinics running? What you are trying to frame as impossibilities is already the reality for many decades in countries ranking far higher in development and quality of living indexes that the US. How do you explain that? |
|
| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You're missing the point, language can be tricky. Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery. It used to be called corvée. But the words being used have a connotation of something much more brutal and unrewarding. This isn't a political statement, I'm not a libertarian who believes all taxation is evil robbery and needs to be abolished. I'm just pointing out by the definition of slavery aka forced labor, and robbery aka confiscation of wealth, the state employs both of those tactics to fund the programs you described. |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery. Without the state, you wouldn't have wealth. Heck there wouldn't even be the very concept of property, only what you could personally protect by force! Not to mention other more prosaic aspects: if you own a company, the state maintains the roads that your products ship through, the schools that educate your workers, the cities and towns that house your customers... In other words the tax is not "money that is yours and that the evil state steals from you", but simply "fair money for services rendered". | | |
| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | To a large extent, yes. That's why the arrangement is so precarious, it is necessary in many regards, but a totalitarian regime or dictatorship can use this arrangement in a nefarious manner and tip the scale toward public resentment. Balancing things to avoid the revolutionary mob is crucial. Trading your labor for protection is sensible, but if the exchange becomes exorbitant, then it becomes a source of revolt. |
| |
| ▲ | cataphract 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the state "confiscated" wealth derived from capital (AI) would that be OK with you? | |
| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You're missing the point, language can be tricky. Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery. You're letting your irrational biases show. To start off, social security contributions are not a tax. But putting that detail aside, do you believe that paying a private health insurance also represents slavery and robbery? Are you a slave to a private pension fund? Are you one of those guys who believes unions exploit workers whereas corporations are just innocent bystanders that have a neutral or even positive impact on workers lives and well being? | | |
| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No, I'm a progressive and believe in socialism. But taxation is de facto a form of unpaid labor taken by the force of the state. If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. It is both robbery and slavery, and in the ideal situation, it is a benevolent sort of exchange, despite existing in the realm of slavery/robbery. In a totalitarian system, it become malevolent very quickly. It also can be seen as not benevolent when the exchange becomes onerous and not beneficial. Arguing this is arguing emotionally and not rationally using language with words that have definitions. social security contributions are a mandatory payment to the state taken from your wages, they are a tax, it's a compulsory reduction in your income. Private health insurance is obviously not mandatory or compulsory, that is different, clearly. Your last statement is just irrelevant because you assume I'm a libertarian for pointing out the reality of the exchange taking place in the socialist system. | | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > No, I'm a progressive and believe in socialism I'd be very interested in hearing which definition of "socialism" aligns with those obviously libertarian views? > If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. It is both robbery and slavery [...] Arguing this is arguing emotionally and not rationally using language with words that have definitions. Indulging in the benefits of living in a society, knowingly breaking its laws, being appalled by entirely predictable consequences of those action, and finally resorting to incorrect usage of emotional language like "slavery" and "robbery" to deflect personal responsibility is childish. Taxation is payment in exchange for services provided by the state and your opinion (or ignorance) of those services doesn't make it "robbery" nor "slavery". Your continued participation in society is entirely voluntary and you're free to move to a more ideologically suitable destination at any time. | | |
| ▲ | sneak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They’re not “services provided” unless you have the option of refusing them. | | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 3 days ago | parent [-] | | What do you mean? Is this one of those sovereign citizen type of arguments? The government provides a range of services that are deemed to be broadly beneficial to society. Your refusal of that service doesn't change the fact that the service is being provided. If you don't like the services you can get involved in politics or you can leave, both are valid options, while claiming that you're being enslaved and robbed is not. | | |
| ▲ | sneak 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not at all. If it happens to you even when you don’t want it and don’t want to pay for it (and are forced to pay for it on threat of violence), that is no service. Literally nobody alive today was “involved in politics” when the US income tax amendment was legislated. Also, you can’t leave; doubly so if you are wealthy enough. Do you not know about the exit tax? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Good idea, lets make taxes optional or non enforceable. What comes next. Oh right, nobody pays. The 'government' you have collapses and then strong men become warlords and set up fiefdoms that fight each other. Eventually some authoritarian gathers up enough power to unite everyone by force and you have your totalitarian system you didn't want, after a bunch of violence you didn't want. We assume you're libertarian because you are spouting libertarian ideas that just don't work in reality. | | |
| ▲ | sneak 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If nobody pays them, then in a democracy they shouldn’t exist. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the majority of people don’t want to be forced to pay taxes, then why do we pretend to have a democracy and compulsory taxation? It can’t be both. What you seem to be arguing for is a dictatorship, where a majority of people don’t want something, but are forced into it anyway. FYI the United States survived (and thrived) for well over a century without income taxes. Your theory that the state immediately collapses without income taxes doesn’t really hold up. |
| |
| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sneak 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Are countries with access to free health care using slavery to keep hospitals and clinics running? No, robbery. They’re paid for with tax revenues, which are collected without consent. Taking of someone’s money without consent has a name. Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? |
| |
| ▲ | 331c8c71 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? My understanding is that your info is seriously out of date. It might have been the case in the distant past but not the case anymore. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/20/tracking-decline-social-mob... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index | |
| ▲ | Rexxar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? It's a common idea but each time you try to measure social mobility, you find a lot of European countries ahead of USA. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/15/social-mobil... | |
| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? Which class mobility is this that you speak of? The one that forces the average US citizens to be a paycheck away from homelessness? Or is it the one where you are a medical emergency away from filing bankruptcy? Have you stopped to wonder how some European countries report higher median household incomes than the US? But by any means continue to believe your average US citizen is a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, just waiting for the right opportunity to benefit from your social mobility. In the meantime, also keep in mind that mobility also reflects how easy it is to move down a few pegs. Let that sink in. | | |
| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | the economic situation in Europe is much more dire than the US... | | |
| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > the economic situation in Europe is much more dire than the US... Is it, though? The US reports by far the highest levels of lifetime literal homelessness, which is three times greater than in countries like Germany. Homeless people on Europe aren't denied access to free healthcare, primary or even tertiary. Why do you think the US, in spite of it's GDP, features so low in rankings such as human development index or quality of life? | |
| ▲ | andrepd 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yet people live better. Goes to show you shouldn't optimise for crude, raw GDP as an end in itself, only as a means for your true end: health, quality of life, freedom, etc. | | |
| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago | parent [-] | | In many of the metrics, yeah. But Americans can afford larger houses and more stuff essentially, which isn't necessarily a good replacement for general quality of life things. | | |
| ▲ | motorest 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > In many of the metrics, yeah. But Americans can afford larger houses and more stuff essentially, which isn't necessarily a good replacement for general quality of life things. I think this is the sort of red herring that prevents the average US citizen from realizing how screwed over they are. Again, the median household income in the US is lower than in some European countries. On top of this, the US provides virtually no social safety net or even socialized services to it's population. The fact that the average US citizen is a paycheck away from homelessness and the US ranks so low in human development index should be a wake-up call. |
|
| |
| ▲ | suddenlybananas 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Several US states have the life expectancy of Bangladesh. |
|
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? This is not true, it was true historically, but not since WWII. Read Piketty. |
|
