3 ms·
> Giving people more options (as in, unrestricted money to spend) is the opposite of coercion. The context is important. Are these "options" given willingly or
by brbsix 10y ago
> Giving people more options (as in, unrestricted money to spend) is the opposite of coercion.
The context is important. Are these "options" given willingly or taken by force? The distinction is pretty important. It's the difference between making love (a voluntary interaction) and rape (an involuntary one). If this "unrestricted money" is to be collected by force (or the threat of it), it is most certainly coercive.
- ubernostrum 10y agoYou should be aware that it's entirely possible to construct justification of tax-supported UBI or other social-welfare programs in a way that is just even by libertarian standards. Admittedly many variations involve recasting the tax as a sort of civil damages award, but it works.
- skybrian 10y agoYes, of course taxes are coercive. I was talking about the other side. The person getting unrestricted money to spend isn't being coerced. Compare with conditional transfers (you get the money but only if you meet certain requirements). That can be coercive in effect, if you need the money badly enough.