8 ms·
I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that
by late2part 10y ago
I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that don't want to work?
As to your point:
"the view there should be no taxes"
I think killing puppies is bad. That has about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment does.
Your comment "it's somehow your money being taken away [is] mistaken" is simply specious and illogical. You want my government, which gains money through taxation, to provide for people who don't want to work.
Are you suggesting I wouldn't pay more to support your program that gives money to people who don't want to work?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y agoI don't want to force you to pay for them -- you're welcome to not work, and you'll live (and have the basics). If you want luxuries, then you have to work for them, and that includes paying the cost of using the systems that enable you to work. You don't get to use systems to earn luxuries and expect others to pay for them. My position is that we're very wealthy (as a society) and luxuries (or just running up the scoreboard) are pretty motivating, so we don't need to organize society in a fundamentally coercise manner, merely make luxuries more expensive. The amount of luxury cost increase relative to the amount of coercion and suffering we could alleviate means society is better off. I would even go so far as to say that we'll end up wealthier as a result, but that's a controversial position.