3 ms·
> We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few. And absent the threat of violent force, how do you suppose
by trentnix 6y ago
> We have the productivity to afford that; we just have chosen to consolidate it to a relative few.
And absent the threat of violent force, how do you suppose we take that productivity from this relative few? My government threatens me with penalties and imprisonment if I don't give up my "fair share" via various taxes. And if I resist that, they use weapons to force me to comply.
Are you not just trading one definition of war for another?
- wavefunction 6y agoI can't speak for your country but at least in the US the government is "We the People" or at least those of us interested enough to get involved whether by voting or running for office. If my democratic society has decided through an open and fair democratic process to require certain levels of taxation then it's my responsibility to society to meet those regulations. If I disagree with what has been collectively decided then my recourse is to convince enough of my fellow citizens to change the regulations. I don't see how that has anything to do with war. It seems like a very hyperbolic claim to make to me.
- trentnix 6y agomy responsibility to society That's the rub. Your responsibility is determined by the mob. If you resist, the mob, via the justice system, forces you to comply with the threat of physical violence. If I resist with force, is that not war? If two of us resist with force, is that not war? If 10000 of us resist with force, is that not war? Was the Civil War not war? Is it really any more poetic when it's done by large groups of people than when it's done by a few?