Well, I'm not sure Donald Trump is the problem. Rather, he exemplifies what happens when the whole system loses credibility.

But I don't think it's a good idea to get stuck in any old political ideology. Things change, life and the world move on, and we need to move with the times. Time to come up with new ideas and new solutions, otherwise we keep going round and round in circles without getting anywhere or not anywhere good in any case.

Whoever has a good idea, be it "socialist" or "capitalist," it should be adopted, modified as required, and implemented. And discard the unnecessary ideological baggage that holds us back and prevents us from building a better and brighter future for all ....

Like you, Fitzhugh lamented wage labor, capitalist exploitation, and was fervently illiberal. It’s neat how the tandem desire for control can make slave masters and socialists comfy bedfellows. So I think you are more inclined to fit in well with him than me.

It’s true; I am operating on the assumption that a slave is chattel, is forced to work at the discretion of his master, is not allowed to leave, is involuntary, and so on. Maybe you don’t define “slave” in such a way, but I do, and given that these conditions are absent in wage labor, the conditions of slavery are not the same as the conditions of wage labor. This admittedly common sense view of slavery, not as penetrating as your own no doubt, suffices for me to distinguish slavery from wage labor, and why I refuse to consider wage labor as wage slavery. As far as pejoratives go, it’s a weak and boring one.

I don’t think it can be argued that slavery was voluntary or consensual, or that slaves should be blamed for their conditions, so we’ll just leave that one aside.

It’s true that leaving a job can lead to financial hardship, but then again it can prove beneficial. It would be interesting to see some statistics on it, but from personal experience, I know of no one who has quit a job and faced homelessness or stigma or humiliation. Certainly some do, but I’ve quit plenty of jobs and am the better for it. Have you ever quit a job before? Have you ever had a job before?

As for the theory of exploitation, for me the criticism of the theory remains the same as when Böhm-Bawerk made them over a century ago: surplus value is not equal to profits and wages are often paid in advance of revenue. That and the collapse of the labor theory of value renders the theory pretty useless.

But I don’t think you really care much about the exploitation of labor, anyways, especially when it comes to the government taking it. Your so-called “say in what the state does with taxes” is false. I wager you have not followed a single dollar of your taxes to any final destination. If you cannot know where it goes, you cannot have a say in where it goes. All you’ve done is hinged your servile hopes on the promises of politicians and bureaucrats, pretending that selecting from a rogues gallery of state careerists amounts to having a say in government.

I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper.

I did not request those services. So why should I have to pay for them?

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. — NOS4A2

It doesn't get more true just by ignoring the arguments to the contrary. You abandoned the last thread in which you made this ridiculous claim because you couldn't answer the criticism raised against it, and yet here you bring it up again like a polished turd. Do you plan to actually defend it this time?

I did not request those services. So why should I have to pay for them? — NOS4A2

Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how.

I don’t remember the argument but sure I’ll try to defend it.

Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how.

I use roads all the time.

I don’t remember the argument but sure I’ll try to defend it. — NOS4A2

Great, then we'll start again. On what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

I use roads all the time. — NOS4A2

Then you've seriously misunderstood the arrangement. Do you get chucked off a lot of fairground rides too? The roads aren't free, they're there for you to use on the assumption that you (or others in your community on your behalf) pay for them. If you don't agree to this, don't use them.

Great, then we'll start again. On what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

A wage is payed to me for my labor. Do you think it should be payed to someone else?

Then you've seriously misunderstood the arrangement. Do you get chucked off a lot of fairground rides too? The roads aren't free, they're there for you to use on the assumption that you (or others in your community on your behalf) pay for them. If you don't agree to this, don't use them.

I am well aware that roads aren’t free, and I use them because I pay taxes. What I don’t agree to is the coercive and involuntary arrangement.

A wage is payed to me for my labor. Do you think it should be payed to someone else? — NOS4A2

That's not what I asked. On what grounds is it your property?

I am well aware that roads aren’t free, and I use them because I pay taxes. What I don’t agree to is the coercive and involuntary arrangement. — NOS4A2

Then don't use the roads. You've no argument so long as you're using them.

That's not what I asked. On what grounds is it your property?

It was given to me. Is it someone else’s property?

Then don't use the roads. You've no argument so long as you're using them.

Why would I not use something that I’ve already helped to fund?

It was given to me. Is it someone else’s property? — NOS4A2

So your grounds for ownership is that it was given to you? Is everything given to you automatically yours? I'd hate to lend you a lawnmower.

Why would I not use something that I’ve already helped to fund? — NOS4A2

Moral integrity?

So your grounds for ownership is that it was given to you? Is everything given to you automatically yours? I'd hate to lend you a lawnmower.

No, I’m not borrowing it. It was given to me on the assumption that I get to keep it. If it’s not my property, whose property is it?

Moral integrity?

Not only should my money be stolen for the construction of roads, but I should refrain from using them? That sounds like a double loss.

t was given to me on the assumption that I get to keep it. — NOS4A2

Are you saying your employer is unaware of the taxation system?

Not only should my money be stolen for the construction of roads, but I should refrain from using them? That sounds like a double loss. — NOS4A2

Obviously if you don't like the system you need to present the alternative.

Are you saying your employer is unaware of the taxation system?

No, of course he is aware. Whose property is my wage?

Obviously if you don't like the system you need to present the alternative.

There is no alternative to present. The monopoly is total.

Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how. — Isaac

Exactly. We may not specifically request certain services but still use them. In order to demand exemption from taxation we would need to show that we are not using any of those services now or in the future. But we can't do that if we are using them .... :grin:

No one uses all roads, though. Not only that but it cannot be shown that one’s taxes go to any specific road, or if they go to Raytheon missiles, or some other “service”.

No, of course he is aware. — NOS4A2

Then he didn't give it to you with the expectation that you'll keep it did he? He gave it to you with the expectation that the appropriate proportion would be given to the government in taxes. So once more, on what grounds is it your property?

There is no alternative to present. — NOS4A2

Build your own road and use that.

True. But you are not taxed the whole amount spent on the entire road system, only for a small fraction of it. Personally, I am against excessive taxation especially if any of my money goes to foreign aid, dodgy international institutions like the UN, and other questionable projects. But I think that paying some taxes isn't a big problem so long as it is kept within reasonable limits. The big corporations should certainly have their taxes drastically increased and they shouldn't be allowed to take over the country. With a bit of luck this might enable the state to reduce the taxes for the rest of us.

The “appropriate proportion” is defined by the state, and is added to the cost at the expense of the consumer, in other words, people like myself. It’s not like the employer is giving the state their own money back. It’s taken from the tax-payer at every point.

So once more, on what grounds is it the state’s property?

Build your own road and use that.

I would have to go through the state to do it.

The “appropriate proportion” is defined by the state, and is added to the cost at the expense of the consumer, in other words, people like myself. — NOS4A2

So?

It’s not like the employer is giving the state their own money back. It’s taken from the tax-payer at every point. — NOS4A2

You've still not provided any grounds on which the money is the property of the tax-payer. I'll ask again, on what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

It’s true; I am operating on the assumption that a slave is chattel — NOS4A2

the conditions of slavery are not the same as the conditions of wage labor — NOS4A2

This admittedly common sense view of slavery, not as penetrating as your own no doubt, suffices for me to distinguish slavery from wage labor, and why I refuse to consider wage labor as wage slavery. As far as pejoratives go, it’s a weak and boring one. — NOS4A2

It's not a pejorative, it's a description of fact. Working for a wage is renting yourself -- your brains and muscles, time and effort -- for money. So simple even you can understand it. The rest is semantics. If you want to restrict "slavery" for chattel slavery, fine. The Republican party of the 1800s would disagree with you.

I don’t think it can be argued that slavery was voluntary or consensual, or that slaves should be blamed for their conditions, so we’ll just leave that one aside. — NOS4A2

They had the option to leave, just as the factory girl has the option to leave. There are repercussions for both. Since we're ignoring the latter, let's ignore the former as well. In which case: both are voluntary. In your world.

It’s true that leaving a job can lead to financial hardship, but then again it can prove beneficial. — NOS4A2

True, as can leaving a plantation.

surplus value is not equal to profits and wages are often paid in advance of revenue. That and the collapse of the labor theory of value renders the theory pretty useless. — NOS4A2

I never claimed "surplus value" is equal to profits. Whatever the worker is paid, it cannot possibly be more than what his or her production is worth. In that case, there'd be no business. There'd be deficits and bankruptcy. If that's too difficult for you, that's your problem.

The profits made by a company are generated by the workers of that company. The workers, in turn, have zero say in how those profits are distributed -- in a capitalist system, anyway. I'm against that, because I'm against illegitimate hierarchy and I'm in favor of democracy. You've now shown repeatedly you're not in favor of democracy. In which case, I'd say: go live in another country.

Your so-called “say in what the state does with taxes” is false. I wager you have not followed a single dollar of your taxes to any final destination. If you cannot know where it goes, you cannot have a say in where it goes. All you’ve done is hinged your servile hopes on the promises of politicians and bureaucrats, pretending that selecting from a rogues gallery of state careerists amounts to having a say in government. — NOS4A2

I realize, of course, that you're too silly to understand this, but I'll continue on:

We have a "say" in the state in a number of ways. One of those ways is voting, but there are others as well. The higher up the chain you get, the harder it is to have an influence. When it comes to what is done with taxes, we should vote in people who want to spend that money on programs we advocate for. I never said I could track my tax dollars. There's plenty to criticize the government for -- nearly all politicians are bought by the corporate sector, they're basically unresponsive to the needs of the majority of the population, etc. There should be more parties, and so on. We could go on about it. It should be more democratic, less influenced by special interests....

All of this is obvious. It's not about worshiping the state. The state should represent the people, and it really doesn't. That should change.

Now compare the state -- the government -- to the corporation, to capitalism. Is there democracy there? No. Is there any say in the decisions? No. Any expectation that they represent the "people" or their workers? No. Any worker vote for who make the decisions? No. Any say in what happens to the profits we all generate? No. Do you have free speech within a corporation? No. Democracy, your rights (voting, speech), etc., all out the window once you enter the workplace.

And yet, your religion says: the latter is the ideal. Government bad, capitalism good.

There is no alternative to present.
— NOS4A2

Build your own road and use that. — Isaac

Or go back to the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the idea is that being taxed is "confiscation of property," an old idea. In an ideal world, we would, as a community, pool our resources voluntarily to do things we cannot do individually. Wonderful. But this, like "free market capitalism" -- is a compete fantasy. It's never existed.

So why do people continue to hold to it? Because it's an easy slogan to remember, keeps things simple. Pure abstraction. But no connection to the real world of state-capitalism, and no understanding of history.

Again, you're dealing with a person who voted for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. This is the level of intellect here. So don't be disappointed if you get exactly no where.

As you were saying: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/02/youtube-suspends-sky-news-australia-videos-denying-covid-19-existence

you're dealing with a person who voted for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. This is the level of intellect here. So don't be disappointed if you get exactly no where. — Xtrix

Yeah, I've actually had this exact conversation with @NOS4A2 before. we reached...https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/509272...then Nos walked away unable to defend his position.

It just fascinates me what might be going through the minds of people who, after utterly failing to defend their position in one thread nonetheless just re-iterate it in another as if it were unassailable epiphany. The motive, I'm sure, is to do with declaring opinions as 'membership badges' for particular social groups and I see no reason to assume otherwise here, but the mechanisms are the interesting bit, I imagine I'm looking at the cogs whirring whilst they're contorting sets of beliefs into a sufficiently grotesque edifice to sound like a counter-argument. It's a truly engaging hobby, no?

You've still not provided any grounds on which the money is the property of the tax-payer. I'll ask again, on what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?

I already did. It was the agreed-upon wage for the labor I provide. On what grounds is it the state’s property?

Yeah, I've actually had this exact conversation with @NOS4A2 before. we reached...https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/509272...then Nos walked away unable to defend his position.

I walked away because you’re boring and difficult to read. That’s not something to be proud of.

I already did. It was the agreed-upon wage for the labor I provide. — NOS4A2

Yes, and we agreed that your employer was aware of the proportion he expected to go to the government. Are we just going to do all this again?

Your employer agrees to pay £100 to you in the knowledge that you'll keep £80 and give £20 to the government. So in what way is the whole £100 your property? Your employer did not intend you to have it, no law determines you should have it, no one involved in the entire transaction bargained from the assumption that you'd keep it. So on what grounds is it your property?

On what grounds is it the state’s property? — NOS4A2

The law by which property is determined. Contract law (both parties were expecting such a payment when they entered into the contract), and, if you like, natural law - you used government services in earning that money so they're entitled to renumeration.

I’m aware of how the income tax system works. It applies to most forms of income, not just what employers pay in wages. But the question of whose income, properties, sales, estates, inheritances, benefits, money they are taxing is explicitly stated by governments themselves.

Force and confiscation aren’t legitimate forms of acquiring property for me, so reiterating that the state claims a right, therefor it has the right, to the fruits of my labor isn’t good enough for me.

Force and confiscation aren’t legitimate forms of acquiring property for me, so reiterating that the state claims a right, therefor it has the right, to the fruits of my labor isn’t good enough for me. — NOS4A2

So we need to first establish what is your 'property' and what is the 'fruits of your labour'. As we've now been through several times, your pre-tax wage isn't either of those things by any measure you've yet suggested.

Put it like this. If the government changed the income tax laws tomorrow so that instead of you paying from your return, your employer paid the government directly. Your employer would drop your take home wage accordingly, right? You wouldn't expect him to pay you the same as before plus your taxes?

Now your revolution finally comes, government is abolished and your employer no longer has to pay your taxes. They're not going to put your wages up by the exact amount they used to pay in tax are they? Why would they, they know they can secure workers for the cost of your take home pay, so it'd be madness to offer more. The money was never yours, it was just the tax due.They'll now need that money for all the investment and infrastructure they're going to have to pay for themselves that the government used to pay for.

So in what sense could you possibly say the money was yours before this?

Just to be clear, I’m not an abolish the government kind of guy. People are too dependent on it, that to abolish it would be cruel. I’m not even into civil disobedience. I much rather make fun of it and let it go it’s own direction. I just think that taxation is immoral and unjust and maybe, even piecemeal, it can become just.

Bear with my layman’s understanding, but in your scenario I would expect the full pay. Income tax and deductions come from my gross income, my full earnings according to the agreed-upon wage multiplied by the sum of hours I work. By “fruits of my labor”, at least as it pertains to this kind of employment, I mean my gross income. If the tax system was abolished I would expect my employer to pay me everything I earned, including the money the government commonly deducts from this exchange.

I say that the gross income is mine because it was traded to me, exchanged, given to me, gifted, for my work.