Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the US needs a paradigm shift where it stops thinking of income taxation as taking something from someone. It's not, because under the rules of society, that person is never due that money in the first place. That money is the portion of the nominal sum that is "earned" that accrues to society for the support and conducive living environment that the provide to the individual. It's true that it is coercive: t…
who's suggesting that property laws are obvious? Property laws exist because property is rivalrous , and the commons are generally abused, for example how the #1 polluter in the US is the US government, how the soviet bloc and china were far worse per capita polluters than the US. > But this is also true of all laws, Yes, that's true for all laws. It's funny that no one says it's part of the "social contract" when so…
Anyone who says they believe in "small government". That small set of rules always happens to include property laws.
> when someone gets choked out and killed by the police
That's also illegal. I would also advocate enforcing the law against law enforcement officers. Stronger than against ordinary citizens if anything.
> we think it's great because it's "punishes" the wealthy
Actually, I think that (even assuming that it were enforced) it does little to no harm to the wealthy. They have sufficient wealth that having less has almost no impact on their well-being.
> The problem is that political power is a zero-sum game, so any solution that gives those in power more power will only make matters worse.
Giving money to the poor gives them political power. Or rather economic power, which is a good substitute, and often what the rich use to gain political power.
Ideally we'd have some kind of basic income which provides this function directly. But other socially funded initiatives such as healthcare and education are also helpful in this regard.