On 10/20/2013 10:55 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > " It means there is less disposable income in circulation. " > > Yes, which is why a negative income tax rate probably makes sense. > However, you still have to work for it. > But the whole idea behind using coercion and threats of violence to achieve social justice, is problematic. Let's take this simple example:
Group A wants everyone to pitch in and provide a basic income for people. Group B doesn't believe in this method and wants to opt out. Now if we follow the plan proposed by Group B, then everyone can get what they want. Those who believe in the plan put forth by Group A, can certainly agree to chip in and provide a basic income for everyone in the plan; while those in Group B can do whatever they choose. However, if we follow the plan proposed by Group A, then no one can dissent, and the plan must then be implemented by violence and threats of violence against those who want to opt out. Now, in a democracy, here's where the problem gets more complicated: there's not just a plan A and and plan B. There are thousands of groups, and each of which have their own plans. Each one of these plans demands that everyone participate; not just those who wish to opt out, but everyone else who want another type of plan implemented. This creates an institutionalized form of violence whereby every plan put forth must then be implemented by threats of violence against those who disagree. This system of institutionalized violence puts us all at war with each other; when the problem can be solved by letting everyone participate, who wants to participate, and dropping the idea that everyone must participate in the chosen plans. So let people choose how they want to each live their own lives, and stop the threats of violence. Hell, I might even agree with some of these plans and choose to opt-in, but if we want a society where everyone is treated as political equals, then we have to stop demanding that those who choose to opt-out, be forced to opt-in. Craig
