3 ms·

It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, eve

by igk 9y ago

It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedom, not an end, and can be touched more easily. Hence, taxes are (more) ok. In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them, and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house afterwards. Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset

meric 9y ago
A 2.5% annual wealth tax that goes to the nearest 20 families who are less well-off, split equally.
- talmand 9y ago
  Why start at 2.5%? Let's go ahead and get down that slippery slope to start taking people's money at around a 90% rate.
talmand 9y ago
>> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most people.
- igk 9y ago
  Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging
  - talmand 9y ago
    It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc. There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much. People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.
    - igk 9y ago
      Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it, you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small corruption becomes desirable. Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour. Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.

by igk 9y ago

meric 9y ago

A 2.5% annual wealth tax that goes to the nearest 20 families who are less well-off, split equally.

talmand 9y ago
Why start at 2.5%? Let's go ahead and get down that slippery slope to start taking people's money at around a 90% rate.

talmand 9y ago

>> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most people.

igk 9y ago
Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging
- talmand 9y ago
  It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc. There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much. People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.
  - igk 9y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it, you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small corruption becomes desirable. Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour. Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.