5 ms·
Taxation is coercion. Higher taxation is higher coercion. With that being said, the US already spends more on public healthcare than Canada does, so the proble
by rafale 4y ago
Taxation is coercion. Higher taxation is higher coercion.
With that being said, the US already spends more on public healthcare than Canada does, so the problem is a lot more complex than where should the money come from.
- Psillisp 4y agoPatching bullet holes is expensive.
- maxerickson 4y agoYou can just as well say that property is coercion. Like I get that you won't agree, but you are asserting a value system when you do that.
- surement 4y agotaking something with the threat of force is not the same as owning something that you traded for in a mutually agreed upon transaction
- DarylZero 4y agoThere still needs to be an initial act of taking by force to set up the initial ownership, creating the possibility of trade.
- surement 4y agoNo, there doesn't. You can own and trade something you built. That's what remunerated work is.
- DarylZero 4y agoYou still have to build it out of something. An economy of pure traded labor, like trading foot massages or whatever, wouldn't actually have property.
- 9873259735609 4y agoThere are natural resources that nobody created. Using them to create something is not coercion and results in property that can be traded for other property or services. Property can be coercion (e.g. untouched land claimed by or with the support of the state), but it doesn't have to be.
- gus_massa 4y agoI want to build a table, so I chomp a tree. You want to build a chair, and you chomp another tree. I want to build another table, so I must walk a longer distance to find a tree. If everyone cut trees, it will get harder to find one. Another person want to build a music instrument. He need some special kind of tree, with some specific size and age, so he want all of us to not cut that tree. Does he make a fence to protect the tree while it's growing? Does he hire a bodyguard for the tree? Hunter-gathering is coercion-free unless someone other group want hunter-gathering in the same place. An once farmer arrive, it gets more complicated.
- 9873259735609 4y ago> I want to build a table, so I chomp a tree. You want to build a chair, and you chomp another tree. I want to build another table, so I must walk a longer distance to find a tree. If everyone cut trees, it will get harder to find one. No coercion here. There is no force or threats of violence involved in these scenarios. Imposing a negative externality on someone is not necessarily coercion. > Another person want to build a music instrument. He need some special kind of tree, with some specific size and age, so he want all of us to not cut that tree. Does he make a fence to protect the tree while it's growing? Does he hire a bodyguard for the tree? That would likely be coercion. Unless he planted the tree, or acquired it by consensual means from its previous owner, he doesn't have any more right to the tree than anyone else. Although, I don't think it would be as bad as if he had taken the tree from someone who had already cut it down because in that case he would have deprived them of the product of the labour that went into cutting the tree down as well.
- maxerickson 4y agoMy point is that it's perfectly valid to argue that ownership itself is coercive.
- surement 4y agoI don't think you understand what coercive means
- buttercraft 4y agoIf multiple people want to own the same thing, how do they "decide" who gets it?
- surement 4y agoThe owner of the thing decides to keep it or trade it. If there are no owners, then anyone can take it and it's not coercion.
- didibus 4y agoProperty is enforced by the government and its social contract exactly the same way that taxation is. You didn't actually agree in a mutual contract with everyone when you "traded" your property, except for the agreements the government upholds with its system of laws that forms the social contract and taxation is a clause in that contract.
- px43 4y ago> With that being said, the US already spends more on public healthcare than Canada does That's because it's mostly all going to predatory insurance and drug companies rather than to doctors and other medical professionals. Universal healthcare cuts out all the needless middlemen and and incentivizes governments to put reasonable caps on the profits of drug companies.