3 ms·

> Now: none of the above, and families often consist of two breadwinners (& no children) with a hearty amount of debt, nothing owned, and few savings. All of t

> Now: none of the above, and families often consist of two breadwinners (& no children) with a hearty amount of debt, nothing owned, and few savings. All of this is by choice on the part of the families. People choose to seek employment. People choose to go into debt. People choose to spend rather than save. > The family unit itself may even be weaker because of less shared ownership. "The death of the family is the life of the state."[1] When the welfare state grows larger, the family itself becomes less important. If you want to restore the family to its former place, then you must reduce the welfare state. > Wages haven’t tracked productivity for decades, so wages haven’t risen since the previous story was normal. How about total benefits, including those mandated by the State? Your wages haven't increased but your employer is spending more than ever on your benefits. > We’ve lost all of that ground: not just some of it, all of it, and more. We’re back to the 1920s– wage slaves with few rights and no political ability to change things. We've lost a lot of ground in the quest for liberty, that's for sure. But each June, the Supreme Court creates more "rights" out of thin air. What about those? We have more "rights" than ever, when you look at the burgeoning list of goodies the government doles out. Income inequality is the result of a free society. Imagine perfectly egalitarian society, in terms of wealth. One day, a musical artist gives a concert, and people voluntarily choose to pay money to see it. Now you have inequality, and it was all voluntary. Should the State jump in and steal the excess capital from the artist and give it back to the patrons to restore equality? [1] https://mises.org/library/welfare-states-attack-family https://mises.org/library/welfare-states-attack-family

djur 11y ago
Which "State" are you referring to? I'm not aware of an organization by that name. > Imagine perfectly egalitarian society, in terms of wealth. The "perfect egalitarianism" strawman is, at this point, barely recognizable as either man or straw for all the beatings it's suffered. It is as useless a hypothetical in discussing the appropriate distribution of resources as would be "imagine the entire universe was owned by a single person". The vast majority of people support the use of some degree of compulsion to obtain a more stable or fair distribution of resources than would be obtained in a state of nature. "Stable" tends to be the goal of the right, while "fair" tends to be the goal of the left. From there, everything is a subject of debate -- how much intervention is too much? what is the preferred distribution? can we reach the preferred distribution with a permissible level of intervention?
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  > Which "State" are you referring to? I'm not aware of an organization by that name. The State is the entity within society that holds a monopoly on the use of force. It uses that power to coerce members of society to fund its exploits through legal theft called "taxation." You probably know it by a different name, depending on where you live :-)
  - djur 11y ago
    There is no single entity that holds a monopoly on the use of force and effects taxation, so I don't see anything worth granting a proper noun. Part of the reason I am not an Austrian is because I prefer my political science and economics to deal with concrete actions and actual people and organizations, not Abstract Capitalized Entities. The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of force is a popular one in certain circles, but it isn't the self-evident fact you believe it to be, either.
    - clarkmoody 11y ago
      Of course the individuals who act in their capacity as government employees affect all the outcomes of state action. You may be more of an Austrian than you think if you refuse to recognize "society" and "the state" as independent actors. > The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of force is a popular one in certain circles, but it isn't the self-evident fact you believe it to be, either. What other collection of individuals claims this privilege but the state? (see what I did there ;-) ) Seriously though: if I get a band of guys together and point a gun at you and force you to hand over 25% of your income to us, wouldn't that be illegal? But if I wear a badge and the band of guys is the enforcement arm of the IRS, that's any different? A more complete analysis: https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery
      - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
        And there we have it. A mises.org citation. Good luck finding a country that doesn't engage in taxation. You won't find one with a functioning government, or utilities, or roads, or a military. Keep on with the "taxation is violence" meme. I'm sure that'll get you far.

djur 11y ago

Which "State" are you referring to? I'm not aware of an organization by that name. > Imagine perfectly egalitarian society, in terms of wealth. The "perfect egalitarianism" strawman is, at this point, barely recognizable as either man or straw for all the beatings it's suffered. It is as useless a hypothetical in discussing the appropriate distribution of resources as would be "imagine the entire universe was owned by a single person". The vast majority of people support the use of some degree of compulsion to obtain a more stable or fair distribution of resources than would be obtained in a state of nature. "Stable" tends to be the goal of the right, while "fair" tends to be the goal of the left. From there, everything is a subject of debate -- how much intervention is too much? what is the preferred distribution? can we reach the preferred distribution with a permissible level of intervention?

clarkmoody 11y ago
> Which "State" are you referring to? I'm not aware of an organization by that name. The State is the entity within society that holds a monopoly on the use of force. It uses that power to coerce members of society to fund its exploits through legal theft called "taxation." You probably know it by a different name, depending on where you live :-)
- djur 11y ago
  There is no single entity that holds a monopoly on the use of force and effects taxation, so I don't see anything worth granting a proper noun. Part of the reason I am not an Austrian is because I prefer my political science and economics to deal with concrete actions and actual people and organizations, not Abstract Capitalized Entities. The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of force is a popular one in certain circles, but it isn't the self-evident fact you believe it to be, either.
  - clarkmoody 11y ago
    Of course the individuals who act in their capacity as government employees affect all the outcomes of state action. You may be more of an Austrian than you think if you refuse to recognize "society" and "the state" as independent actors. > The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of force is a popular one in certain circles, but it isn't the self-evident fact you believe it to be, either. What other collection of individuals claims this privilege but the state? (see what I did there ;-) ) Seriously though: if I get a band of guys together and point a gun at you and force you to hand over 25% of your income to us, wouldn't that be illegal? But if I wear a badge and the band of guys is the enforcement arm of the IRS, that's any different? A more complete analysis: https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery
    - MisterBastahrd 11y ago
      And there we have it. A mises.org citation. Good luck finding a country that doesn't engage in taxation. You won't find one with a functioning government, or utilities, or roads, or a military. Keep on with the "taxation is violence" meme. I'm sure that'll get you far.