3 ms·

1. The government offers out contracts to build houses 2. People/Companies refuse contracts based on their principals 3. Other People/Companies take up those

1. The government offers out contracts to build houses 2. People/Companies refuse contracts based on their principals 3. Other People/Companies take up those contracts 4. Those Companies post job openings to build said houses 5. People take said jobs, they can refuse if they don't want to work for a company working for the Govt. 6. Houses get built Sounds like regular capitalism to me, no one is being forced to do something they don't want. If the government are building the houses surely that's the will of the people?

anfilt 4y ago
The money the governments are using to pay that contract is generally paid by taxes. So if we go back to the originally OPs point. Those taxes are enforced via force. While not as a direct as forcing a worker to build the house directly. One is still essentially working to build these house in this case. For instance on average 5% income was taxes for this purpose you could treat it as 5% decrease in pay or more cyclically 5% of ones labor is unpaid. However, you can argue this for just about anything the government does with tax money. It's not wrong per se on an item by item basis of government function. Although, ideally government functions benefit everyone in some regard so in practice its not as bleak sounding. Very few people would be hard pressed to receive zero in return from all functions and programs of a government that is not abusive. Although, unless you get one these houses your not getting anything in return here for this hypothetical 5%, again though that is on an item by item basis. There could be tertiary benefits that one gets, but are hard to quantify with a dollar amount if such a program is working well. Such as a more stable community, ect...
sevenf0ur 4y ago
And what happens when no construction firms want to build where the govt wants? How are they going to enforce this human rights violation? After they are built, houses constantly need maintenance which means your right to a home is dependent on skilled people who aren't going to work for free unless you make them.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > And what happens when no construction firms want to build where the govt wants? That seems unlikely.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum arguments don't warrant entertaining.

anfilt 4y ago

The money the governments are using to pay that contract is generally paid by taxes. So if we go back to the originally OPs point. Those taxes are enforced via force. While not as a direct as forcing a worker to build the house directly. One is still essentially working to build these house in this case. For instance on average 5% income was taxes for this purpose you could treat it as 5% decrease in pay or more cyclically 5% of ones labor is unpaid. However, you can argue this for just about anything the government does with tax money. It's not wrong per se on an item by item basis of government function. Although, ideally government functions benefit everyone in some regard so in practice its not as bleak sounding. Very few people would be hard pressed to receive zero in return from all functions and programs of a government that is not abusive. Although, unless you get one these houses your not getting anything in return here for this hypothetical 5%, again though that is on an item by item basis. There could be tertiary benefits that one gets, but are hard to quantify with a dollar amount if such a program is working well. Such as a more stable community, ect...

sevenf0ur 4y ago

And what happens when no construction firms want to build where the govt wants? How are they going to enforce this human rights violation? After they are built, houses constantly need maintenance which means your right to a home is dependent on skilled people who aren't going to work for free unless you make them.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> And what happens when no construction firms want to build where the govt wants? That seems unlikely.
deadbunny 4y ago
Reductio ad absurdum arguments don't warrant entertaining.