5 ms·

> Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? You're equating forced labor to slavery. I a

• coldtea 13y ago
  >You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! You don't have to agree. That's the definition of slavery. >I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much? Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force", so I don't know who you "also agree with" there. Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process), transfer of private wealth to the government for use in public works, maintenance of the military defence and such. >So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermore, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence. Agreed. But isn't the dire need to eat and put a roof above you a kind of violence too? For people threatened with that violence (which can be even more dire and hard than a few slaps or kicks), it's common to be forced to accept unfavourable and backwards working conditions, just because their job is a "buyer's market". Child labor is a blatant case of this, but most sweatshop jobs in the third world also are. As western countries we have set up our standards higher (than, say, Dicken's London, or J.D Rockfeller's miners, paid in company scrip) , we should demand that they are held higher in the third world too, instead of lowering ours to compete with them.
  • smokeyj 13y ago
    > Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force" You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion. > Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process) By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well. Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape? You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?
    • coldtea 13y ago
      >You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion. Strictly my opinion? Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world. Some people want lower taxes, others disagree with specific tax laws, but statistically speaking, nobody is against taxes in toto. The issue does not even come into play into protests (except from bizarro minorities). People all over the world demand that their government is brought down, that they get better pay, they corrupted officials are punished, and tons of other things -- but "no taxes" is just not on the table. >By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well. Which is beside the point. Taxation WITHIN a democracy is voluntary and decided via the democratic process. That a dictatorship can also have taxation doesn't change this. A dictatorship can also maintain an educational system. That doesn't make it non democratic when a democracy maintains one. >Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape? For reasons obvious to any who accepts democracy and is not Ayn Rand? Because a dictatorship forces the people to do stuff, whereas in a democracy they get to vote for what they want to be done. That some people don't agree with the result it doesn't matter, as long as the majority of people agrees with the process -- ie. the polling for the aggregate popular opinion as expressed in presidential candidates and party platforms and representatives. >You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor? Why do you insist in using BS non-sequiturs to make some bizarro point? Slavery was not voluntary labor because the subjects of slavery weren't part of the democratic process that allowed it to happen. For one, they didn't vote. Even worse, they were victims of abduction and deprived of any citizen rights. They were mere objects to private masters. A tax paying citizen is not that.
      • smokeyj 13y ago
        > Strictly my opinion? In the sense that it's not fact. It's a personal preference which you and many others hold. > Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world. And here lies the crux of your argument. That by being a majority you're justified to act in a way you normally wouldn't. Taking x % of someone's income is normally unjust, but if you outnumber the guy -- all is fair. Because a mob approves of theft, you redefine it as taxation. I can go with that, but don't paint me as the bizarro one.
• aidenn0 13y ago
  Aren't all laws ultimately enforced by the threat of violence? Including the ones that forbid violence?
  • smokeyj 13y ago
    > Aren't all laws ultimately enforced by the threat of violence? Just the ones created by a monopolistic force on violence.