| ▲ | juniperus 4 days ago |
| 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] |
|
|
