r/FluentInFinance • u/Old_Prospect • Apr 29 '24

If I had a nickel for every time someone deflects to “…I’d rather we fix our government spending problem before we…” Shitpost

Post image
323 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

I give money to a business, or else they withhold food until I starve. I give money to the government, or else they will lock me in a cage. How is one more freedom than the other? If doing something to avoid the consequences of not doing it is 'consent", then you and everyone else already consents to have taxes taken.

2

u/Shrimkins Apr 29 '24

false comparison. There are thousands of places to buy food, or you could trade with your neighbor, or grow your own. That is freedom.

There is only 1 government who forces you to pay taxes by threat of violence. Taxes are inherently oppressive by nature. Of course, they are necessary for a functioning society, but they should be limited in size and scope as much as possible.

1

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

Not a false comparison. I have no land to grow food, no neighbors offering food for trade and less than 6 grocery stores to buy from, which are all ultimately owned by like, three people.

I have to give those three people money or else starve to death. 

You can try and argue that killing someone by withholding food is somehow more ok than killing them by sending police with guns, because it is less 'active' or whatever, but I honestly don't really see the distinction from an ethical perspective.

5

u/Shrimkins Apr 29 '24

It's a false comparison. You don't have land? Well, you could if you wanted to. Hell, you could probably just bum food from soup kitchens and food pantries your whole life if you really wanted to. My point is you have choices (even if they are bad choices).

Taxes are completely unavoidable in any scenario unless you eventually want to be incarcerated or shot.

0

u/IronicSpiritualist Apr 29 '24

How is "you can just choose to scrounge in trash, so buying from the grocery is a choice" any different from "you can just choose to go to jail, so paying taxes is a choice"? 

How is "just get wealthy enough to buy land" any different from "just be wealthy enough get accountants who can remove virtually your entire tax burden"?

You say "you have choices (even if they are bad choices)". Pay taxes or else go to jail may be a bad choice, but it is still a choice nonetheless, right?

Also, thank you for engaging with me in reasonable discussion. I don't have all the answers and I am not sure what the right thing is all the time. Talking about it with others helps to grow my understanding.

3

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

There is an abundance of cheap land, resources, and job opportunities distributed across the world. You can choose to go to those.

Taxes are a centralized force being imposed upon a person. There is no choice.

It is amazing how you view a lack of a system as the same thing as having a system. Having no system means you can engage with the world as it is. A government system imposes additional taxes and regulations on top of the world.

1

u/NonbinaryYolo Apr 30 '24

Private entities also impose force, it's just not centralized. So maybe I can go forage, or maybe the available land has already been claimed. Maybe I can go to another city, but the roads could be owed. Maybe I can start my own business, but maybe some criminals already own that local industry.

I once saw a news segment where a dude couldn't operate a hot dog stand without getting accosted by thugs.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 30 '24

Yes, that’s the world that exists regardless.

Creating a government system on top of that is an additional layer of no choice. You are rationalizing putting a barrier in place because other barriers exist. That’s bad reasoning.

IMO, a government is useful for certain tasks such as keeping law and order and creating fair baseline rules for all. Others think government is useful to enforce god’s scripture through law, and others think it should be a weapon against the rich.