3 ms·

I get your point, but there's something you aren't taking into account. You expect there to be public roads, bridges, and other infrastructure in your country,

I get your point, but there's something you aren't taking into account. You expect there to be public roads, bridges, and other infrastructure in your country, right? You also probably expect there to be armed forces to protect the nation, police officers and other LEO individuals to enforce the law as well. You also may expect some forms of public transportation and schooling as well. These are public goods that we all benefit from and share the cost of. That is what taxes are supposed to pay for. That's why it's not slavery. You are paying for those things that damn near everyone agrees they want. As for social programs where money is simply redistributed from one citizen to another - that's a whole other story. I agree with you there that is slavery. Those citizens can vote themselves money from your pocket and if you disagree - the guys with guns show up and take it anyway, and maybe even lock you up for disagreeing.

clarkmoody 10y ago
Many of those things are not "public goods" by the economics definition (see my reply to a sibling). > You expect there to be... That's why it's not slavery. You are paying for those things that damn near everyone agrees they want. If those things are important to me, then I will pay for them. Just because someone else "expects" certain things doesn't mean I do. Everyone manages to put shoes on their feet without the government. And charity could certainly take care of the rest without shoes. Taxation is not a prepayment for services rendered. Or an insurance policy. Or a usage fee. > social programs ... I agree with you there that is slavery Excellent. Then let's agree to move in the direction where government only does the "public goods" stuff. Once we get there, we can disagree again on how far we want to go.
- turc1656 10y ago
  Agreed. I would love to be in a spot where the government abolishes all social programs and only supplies the so-called public goods that we communally benefit from. If all we had to argue about in terms of taxation was the public goods, we'd be in a great spot.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Many of those things are not "public goods" by the economics definition (see my reply to a sibling). > You expect there to be... That's why it's not slavery. You are paying for those things that damn near everyone agrees they want. If those things are important to me, then I will pay for them. Just because someone else "expects" certain things doesn't mean I do. Everyone manages to put shoes on their feet without the government. And charity could certainly take care of the rest without shoes. Taxation is not a prepayment for services rendered. Or an insurance policy. Or a usage fee. > social programs ... I agree with you there that is slavery Excellent. Then let's agree to move in the direction where government only does the "public goods" stuff. Once we get there, we can disagree again on how far we want to go.

turc1656 10y ago
Agreed. I would love to be in a spot where the government abolishes all social programs and only supplies the so-called public goods that we communally benefit from. If all we had to argue about in terms of taxation was the public goods, we'd be in a great spot.