3 ms·
There must be some level at which you would object, no? On what grounds do you object when the percentage becomes 50%, 80% or even 100%? You've already conceded
by dmfdmf 16y ago
There must be some level at which you would object, no? On what grounds do you object when the percentage becomes 50%, 80% or even 100%? You've already conceded the principle and a slave is still a slave regardless if he cooperates with his master. Moreover, nothing I said implies that roads, education, medical services or even charity would not be funded -- in fact you proved my point, these things would be funded voluntarily precisely because many people (myself included) value them. Funding these things by force is immoral. If you think my position is extreme, try not paying your taxes for a few years and learn what the "threat of force" really means to your own freedom and right to property.
- jacquesm 16y agoI don't think you understand what the word slavery entails. I can stop working any time. No master tells me what to do or when to do it. There is no punishment for not being productive. I am free to go where ever I want. and so on. Comparing taxes to slavery is pure hyperbole and whatever cause it is that you are promoting here you are harming it by association.
- raganwald 16y agoAah, Churchill's old insult: "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" "Umm, well, I suppose so." "Her's a tenner, lift your skirt." "What do you take me for?" "We have already settled the question of what you are, now we are haggling over the price." Makes for a humorous story, but it's a terrible reduction ad absurdum argument. The fact that I am prepared to give up x percent of my income in exchange for a given set of benefits that have value to me says nothing about how I would feel giving up 2x or 3x percent of my income for some possibly different set of benefits. Speaking as an Ontarian, I'd be horrified if a political offered to cut my taxes in half and give me the "freedom" to choose my own health care in the "free market." That doesn't make me a slave, it makes me someone who pools certain funds in a coöperative manner. If you want the same argument back at you, try dismantling your army and giving every citizen the right to defend themselves from foreign aggression, buying their weaponry and training on the free market. Choosing to voluntarily pool some portion of your income with other citizens to fund a common defense is not slavery either. It's another kind of freedom.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]