> Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right? This is a ridiculous argument. Just because the statement is true, doesn’t mean it follows that

> Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right? This is a ridiculous argument. Just because the statement is true, doesn’t mean it follows that you can measure enslavement as a percentage of economic output or that any value greater than zero is “indistinguishable” from slavery. You’re just trolling. I mean, if I have to spend 100% of my economic output supporting my sick partner because there is no healthcare safety net, by your own definition I am now enslaved by your kind of “liberty” - entirely because it is dogmatically closed to any kind of mandated cooperation. What a world you dream to live in - a nightmare for all but the strongest. > beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself I ignored this because, conveniently, you also get to choose what constitutes “the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself” - making your reasoning perfectly circular. “It is this way because it must be this way”. > Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy Society can work to reduce fear, and increase joy. But these are not the likely outcomes of the world of your fever dreams. > US v. Butler (1936) I am not familiar with US case law but my understanding is that this case reinforced the limitations on the federal government. In any case it reads like yet another cartoonish non-sequitur. Here’s where I’m going to get of this bus of stupid.