But I think it is at this point where the core of our disagreement lies: you think it is a fair compromise to give up freedom and have a government solve these issues however it sees fit (as a part of a “social contract”), whereas I see it as a basic human right to be able to choose
But private property isn’t a human right. Are you trying to pretend otherwise? Hell, “work begets profits” isn’t a human right. It’s not even a right under capitalism. You could work your ass off and get nothing. You don’t have the right to the fruits of your work in the first place. If you work hard and get nothing, you don’t think you’re entitled to something. The government creates a framework that increases the odds you’re going to get something, and you ungratefully treat their commission as theft.
You being able to get anything at all from your work is a social contract. You say taxation is theft, but here’s something I bet you didn’t know. “Taxation is Theft” is a newer concept, perhaps even a response to the older, more defensible concept that “Property is Theft”.
And with due respect, you DO have a choice. You give consent to taxation every single day you stay in a country that charges taxes. You are consenting to a social contract. Anyone who has ever taken a loan to pay medical bills will agree that consent isn’t necessarily a happy thing, or an uncoerced thing. You could always emmigrate to a country that doesn’t have taxation, like Qatar. Countries that don’t tax have a pretty bad track record of treating people living in them, but at leaste you don’t have to pay taxes. Well, there are a few that are just havens for billionaires, but I don’t think you’re rich enough to go to one of those if you’re arguing with me on lemmy.
Damn you just won’t let it go. I will still not agree with you however more you ramble on. You have not and will not convince me that a government will ever be more competent and efficient at solving these issues than alternatives. And, I repeat, it is not voluntary. If private property is not a right, what gives the government right to dictate my life because I happened to be born on this particular plot of land? And that is rhetorical, I would like to repeat:
I don’t think we will move past it tbh, so we should perhaps leave it at that.
None of these things you replied with have anything to do with the topic at hand, and I understand. It’s easy to come up with some fancy catch-phrase and just hold to it in the face of rational thought. It’s what governments do all the time.
You have not and will not convince me that a government will ever be more competent and efficient at solving these issues than alternatives
This is a topic change and gishgallop. I have opinions on that topic, but why would I pivot to it with how bent out of shape you’re getting over this one?
And, I repeat, it is not voluntary
It is “not voluntary” only the same way contracts are “not voluntary” or work is “not voluntary”. It’s hard to get by without those things because the entire world disagrees with you on them. But it’s possible.
If private property is not a right, what gives the government right to dictate my life because I happened to be born on this particular plot of land?
They don’t dictate your life. They dictate that a percent of the private property they amplify for you go back to them. If you choose not to take their protection on a piece of property, or use their infrastructure in any way, they can ask nothing of you. With very few exceptions, if you work any job or any land at all, you use government infrastructure in 100 different ways. It is perfectly legal in many countries (including the US) to live in the wilderness and sustain yourself on your own efforts. In such a case, you use no infrastructure and pay no taxes. Win/win. What you seem to want is all the entitlement you already have, but the government providing it to you free of charge. Good fucking luck.
It is not legal where I live, and I assure you that the tax agency where I live will hunt me to the edge of the world if I refuse to pay exactly what they demand.
We are just looping around the same arguments here, and do not move anywhere.
Let’s try not talking about the binary situation of refusing a government or taxes altogether. I can agree that certain things can be handled by a state (although not in the most efficient way imo). There are still a shit ton of things that governements spend money on that I might not want. For example, where I live a significant portion of my obligatory tax goes to state run “public service”, i.e. state run entertainment. And our process for public procurement is a mess, where things cost insane amounts of money, and most of the time don’t even lead to any actual executed projects.
How are such things defensible with an obligatory tax design?
What I’m trying to say is that yes in a perfect world taxes are fine and dandy, and we get nice roads and healthcare, but in the reality that at least I live in it is just an expensive mess of things that I mostly don’t want, but am forced to pay for.
Edit: a word
