3 ms·

True, but that's a specious comparison, as taxation is always a forcible redistribution of wealth. No matter what you call a tax, people know it's a tax. It's v

by abeyer 9y ago

True, but that's a specious comparison, as taxation is always a forcible redistribution of wealth. No matter what you call a tax, people know it's a tax. It's very different when there are two opposing directions on an issue and you intentionally mangle language to hide your intent, or worse yet co-opt the language of the opposition to deceive.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
Firstly - not always. Voluntary taxation is a thing (although that's perhaps a poor name for it, although charity doesn't work either). Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives.
- abeyer 9y ago
  > Voluntary taxation is a thing Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. I'm not aware of its ever being applied on a practical scale in modern history, and a quick google didn't turn up any obvious examples. Citations? > Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives. I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. As things stand, any bill to do X is going to raise and/or reallocate taxes to fund doing X. Calling a bill "The X Bill" rather than "The bill that raises taxes to do X" isn't a euphemism, but just a practical use of language where the 'raise taxes' part is universally assumed and implied. Maybe there are better alternatives to that model, and I agree that people probably don't stop to consider such alternatives as much as they should, but there's still a fundamental difference between omitting something that is implied and being actively deceptive.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    > Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. Yeah, I think it remains a theory; that's what I meant by 'a thing'. Something to discuss, perhaps, rather than something that's already being done :) > I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. I think that's our point of disagreement. Take e.g. the "Free Higher Education for All Act". "Free" in this context is pure Newspeak.
    - abeyer 9y ago
      > I think that's our point of disagreement. Take e.g. the "Free Higher Education for All Act". "Free" in this context is pure Newspeak. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance. I think you're right in the strictest sense, but I just fundamentally don't believe that anyone is actually deceived even when you call something "free."

by abeyer 9y ago

duncan_bayne 9y ago

Firstly - not always. Voluntary taxation is a thing (although that's perhaps a poor name for it, although charity doesn't work either). Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives.

abeyer 9y ago
> Voluntary taxation is a thing Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. I'm not aware of its ever being applied on a practical scale in modern history, and a quick google didn't turn up any obvious examples. Citations? > Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives. I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. As things stand, any bill to do X is going to raise and/or reallocate taxes to fund doing X. Calling a bill "The X Bill" rather than "The bill that raises taxes to do X" isn't a euphemism, but just a practical use of language where the 'raise taxes' part is universally assumed and implied. Maybe there are better alternatives to that model, and I agree that people probably don't stop to consider such alternatives as much as they should, but there's still a fundamental difference between omitting something that is implied and being actively deceptive.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. Yeah, I think it remains a theory; that's what I meant by 'a thing'. Something to discuss, perhaps, rather than something that's already being done :) > I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. I think that's our point of disagreement. Take e.g. the "Free Higher Education for All Act". "Free" in this context is pure Newspeak.
  - abeyer 9y ago
    > I think that's our point of disagreement. Take e.g. the "Free Higher Education for All Act". "Free" in this context is pure Newspeak. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance. I think you're right in the strictest sense, but I just fundamentally don't believe that anyone is actually deceived even when you call something "free."