3 ms·

It sounds more like you disagree with taxation, rather than the semantics around subsidization. We can't really continue this line of dialogue if you disagree t

It sounds more like you disagree with taxation, rather than the semantics around subsidization. We can't really continue this line of dialogue if you disagree that taxes are payments for services rendered. It's like saying Burger King is stealing my lunch money when I buy a Whopper. It's a really bad analogy. Alternatively, here's a definition of subsidy: > A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

xyzzyz 4y ago
No, not quite. I can agree that taxation might be useful or necessary for some pragmatic reasons. It is not, however, any sort of “payment for service rendered”. The crucial element of transaction being a “payment” is it not being coerced. You cannot forego paying taxes and eschew services rendered by government, you are simply not offered this option. This is unlike with Burger King, which does not force me to spend some percentage of my income on Whoppers, whether I want them or not. That’s why the government is a bully. A useful bully that might do a valuable thing for me, but it is a bully nonetheless. Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy.
- imustbeevil 4y ago
  > Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy. I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications. It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.

xyzzyz 4y ago

No, not quite. I can agree that taxation might be useful or necessary for some pragmatic reasons. It is not, however, any sort of “payment for service rendered”. The crucial element of transaction being a “payment” is it not being coerced. You cannot forego paying taxes and eschew services rendered by government, you are simply not offered this option. This is unlike with Burger King, which does not force me to spend some percentage of my income on Whoppers, whether I want them or not. That’s why the government is a bully. A useful bully that might do a valuable thing for me, but it is a bully nonetheless. Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy.

imustbeevil 4y ago
> Finally, to reiterate, bully voluntarily foregoing coercion on occasion is not a subsidy. I just have to go with the definition. Part of the brevity of the original communication was that semantics shouldn't really require discussion, as words have meanings. Even if your position is believed, and taxation is coerced; "subsidy" is defined as including tax breaks. You might think it sounds weird that a bully giving the money back is a subsidy, but that's what that word means. I can find opinion pieces making the case you're making, but that's not the definition used by the majority of other publications. It also really shouldn't matter either way. Whether the government is "subsidizing" a Library or "not bullying" a Church, the original point was that they are receiving special treatment from the government.