5 ms·

1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does

by snitko 13y ago

1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does so threatening taxpayers with penalties and jail, even though those taxpayers never signed a contract saying they have to give a certain share of their income to the government.

jahaja 13y ago
My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.
- Glide 13y ago
  I agree totally. Arguments like these tend to forget that the balance of power is very unequal.
nzp 13y ago
> 1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. I see. And if the worker decides he doesn't like working for any of the available employers, what happens then?
- snitko 13y ago
  That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the money. He may also educate himself and get a better paying job over time. Taxpayers have no options at all, except going to jail, not matter how educated or good they are.
  - nzp 13y ago
    You're trying to paint a reality that doesn't really exist. In practice the employer competition you mention comes down to competing who can pay the least, not who can pay the most. Income statistics show this trend very well, real income for workers is steadily declining. There is a fundamental imbalance of power, which can only be corrected with workers organizing into unions (and only somewhat if we're talking about conventional bureaucratic unions). I don't know where and in what social circles you live in, but most people on this planet can not simply choose to get an education that can significantly change one's material status. It costs money. Lots of money. Mind you, I'm in no way a supporter of state or taxes, but saying people who face real existential risks tied to not having a job or having only access to low paying jobs have more choice than people who don't like paying taxes is ultra cynical. It is not my intention to offend you, but it simply is. Get some perspective please.

by snitko 13y ago

jahaja 13y ago

My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.

Glide 13y ago
I agree totally. Arguments like these tend to forget that the balance of power is very unequal.

nzp 13y ago

> 1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. I see. And if the worker decides he doesn't like working for any of the available employers, what happens then?

snitko 13y ago
That's still his decision. He has options: he may choose among different employers, who, may I remind you, compete with each other to get the best labor for the money. He may also educate himself and get a better paying job over time. Taxpayers have no options at all, except going to jail, not matter how educated or good they are.
- nzp 13y ago
  You're trying to paint a reality that doesn't really exist. In practice the employer competition you mention comes down to competing who can pay the least, not who can pay the most. Income statistics show this trend very well, real income for workers is steadily declining. There is a fundamental imbalance of power, which can only be corrected with workers organizing into unions (and only somewhat if we're talking about conventional bureaucratic unions). I don't know where and in what social circles you live in, but most people on this planet can not simply choose to get an education that can significantly change one's material status. It costs money. Lots of money. Mind you, I'm in no way a supporter of state or taxes, but saying people who face real existential risks tied to not having a job or having only access to low paying jobs have more choice than people who don't like paying taxes is ultra cynical. It is not my intention to offend you, but it simply is. Get some perspective please.