4 ms·

>What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot be better to be enslaved. The premise was if it were better for all involved. I've already said

>What's a good outcome is subjective. For the slave, it cannot be better to be enslaved. The premise was if it were better for all involved. I've already said I don't think that's possible, and it sounds like you agree. >You're even willing to enslave others given the right circumstances. The right circumstances being that it's better for all involved yes. I would consider it immoral to deny people an option that makes them better off. >The countries that have increasingly adopted social democracy have seen wage growth stagnate. I think this has also corresponded with an increase in wealth inequality, largely as a result of increased importance of capital in wealth creation in those countries. But I'm less confident here. Maybe you're right that lower taxes are better for the economy. My main point (although less so in this particular thread) is that arguments for property rights should be based on their positive outcomes for society, not a system of morals that denies economic criticism. "Tax is theft" is an unassailable moral position. "Countries with lower taxes do better" is an actual argument.

aminok 10y ago
>The premise was if it were better for all involved. How could any institution that denies a party the freedom to choose (e.g. slavery) be better for all involved. Maybe you're suggesting that if slaves were better off by some criteria with someone else making decisions for them, even if they would prefer to not be under the control of that third party, then slavery would be in their best interest? >"Tax is theft" is an unassailable moral position. Some people forget that government programs are paid for through forcible income redistribution that in turn relies on the fear created by throwing non-compliers in prison. It's good to remind them, as it may go against their own morals. I think most people are fundamentallt opposed to violating other's rights to their person and property, and it is only the complexity of government, and the ideological constructs created to euphemize and justify its actions, that obfuscates the violence that it deals out, and makes people consent to it, and vote for programs that rely on it.

aminok 10y ago

>The premise was if it were better for all involved. How could any institution that denies a party the freedom to choose (e.g. slavery) be better for all involved. Maybe you're suggesting that if slaves were better off by some criteria with someone else making decisions for them, even if they would prefer to not be under the control of that third party, then slavery would be in their best interest? >"Tax is theft" is an unassailable moral position. Some people forget that government programs are paid for through forcible income redistribution that in turn relies on the fear created by throwing non-compliers in prison. It's good to remind them, as it may go against their own morals. I think most people are fundamentallt opposed to violating other's rights to their person and property, and it is only the complexity of government, and the ideological constructs created to euphemize and justify its actions, that obfuscates the violence that it deals out, and makes people consent to it, and vote for programs that rely on it.