4 ms·

> No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced p

> No one is entitled to labor. Correct. Which is why a business offers a wage and the labor either accepts or rejects it. Zero times have restaurants forced people to work. Exactly all times people have chosen to work, at an agreed upon wage. Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
> Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes. What if the private property that the government is protecting was obtained (by ancestors) by “legal” violence to force others to give to your cause?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Was said property obtained under the current or a prior government? If the current, then it is the duty of the government to resolve the dispute and restore the private property. If it was a former, then there is nothing to be done. The jurisdiction was dissolved, unless the current government recognizes it (but then of course the jurisdiction would not be dissolved).
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        If we are talking about the USA, then it is obviously current government. Not that it would make much difference. The point is might makes right, whether it be political or physical.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    So you believe it's OK for the government to use violence to maintain your control over your nebulously owned property, but not to ensure working citizens are not exploited? So if you fall along the lines that taxation is theft, who do you expect to protect your property if you're not paying anyone to do so? And why should I pay taxes so that the government can protect your property?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > So you believe it's OK for the government to use violence to maintain your control over your nebulously owned property, but not to ensure working citizens are not exploited? I'd happily allow the government to prevent the exploitation of its citizens, but I don't believe that voluntary transactions are exploitation. Why would I want the government to prohibit me from selling my labor at the price I choose? > So if you fall along the lines that taxation is theft, who do you expect to protect your property if you're not paying anyone to do so? And why should I pay taxes so that the government can protect your property? Taxation isn't theft when it is utilized to pay for public goods. It becomes akin to theft when my money is taken to be redistributed to folks in such a way I can't consume (non public good). Currently I have to pay nearly $2k/year in county tax for other people's children to go to daycare. Why on earth am I paying for that? I pay $2k/month per child to send them to daycare and get $0 of the $2k I send to others back to spend on my own children. That is theft.
      - JambalayaJim 3y ago
        Why on earth are my tax dollars going towards spending on a road on the other side of town which I never use?
        hellojesus 3y ago
        This isn't a good argument. The road is, at least, nonexcludable. The policy I described is fully exclude able and fully rivalous. It is not a public good.
  - JambalayaJim 3y ago
    The government’s system for resolving disputes and protecting property is also “legal violence”, and often even physical violence!
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Yes, but it exists in pursuit of a public good. Welfare is not a public good, and therefore we should not use the government to pursue it.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

> Why do you think the government should get to decide for how much I'm willing to sell my labor? Because government's role is to protect its citizens. My apologies if this government is not suitable to you, you may have to relocate if a representative democratic outcome is not to your liking. The evidence is incredibly clear workers need protections from business and capital in the current socioeconomic system, but you may disagree depending on your mental model.

hellojesus 3y ago
> Because government's role is to protect its citizens. We have opposing views, and that's okay. I believe a government should only provide public goods (nonrivalous and nonexcludable). I believe the primary purpose of a government is to protect private property and provide a system for resolving disputes. I believe that welfare should be left to private sector charity. I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I believe that when the government does it, it is akin to using legal violence to force others to give to your causes, which then robs them of the funds they would rather give to other causes. What if the private property that the government is protecting was obtained (by ancestors) by “legal” violence to force others to give to your cause?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Was said property obtained under the current or a prior government? If the current, then it is the duty of the government to resolve the dispute and restore the private property. If it was a former, then there is nothing to be done. The jurisdiction was dissolved, unless the current government recognizes it (but then of course the jurisdiction would not be dissolved).
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      If we are talking about the USA, then it is obviously current government. Not that it would make much difference. The point is might makes right, whether it be political or physical.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  So you believe it's OK for the government to use violence to maintain your control over your nebulously owned property, but not to ensure working citizens are not exploited? So if you fall along the lines that taxation is theft, who do you expect to protect your property if you're not paying anyone to do so? And why should I pay taxes so that the government can protect your property?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > So you believe it's OK for the government to use violence to maintain your control over your nebulously owned property, but not to ensure working citizens are not exploited? I'd happily allow the government to prevent the exploitation of its citizens, but I don't believe that voluntary transactions are exploitation. Why would I want the government to prohibit me from selling my labor at the price I choose? > So if you fall along the lines that taxation is theft, who do you expect to protect your property if you're not paying anyone to do so? And why should I pay taxes so that the government can protect your property? Taxation isn't theft when it is utilized to pay for public goods. It becomes akin to theft when my money is taken to be redistributed to folks in such a way I can't consume (non public good). Currently I have to pay nearly $2k/year in county tax for other people's children to go to daycare. Why on earth am I paying for that? I pay $2k/month per child to send them to daycare and get $0 of the $2k I send to others back to spend on my own children. That is theft.
    - JambalayaJim 3y ago
      Why on earth are my tax dollars going towards spending on a road on the other side of town which I never use?
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        This isn't a good argument. The road is, at least, nonexcludable. The policy I described is fully exclude able and fully rivalous. It is not a public good.
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  The government’s system for resolving disputes and protecting property is also “legal violence”, and often even physical violence!
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Yes, but it exists in pursuit of a public good. Welfare is not a public good, and therefore we should not use the government to pursue it.