Super Testnet
· 5d
Yes, and then you can charge your tenants
You can also become a king and charge taxes, and if your citizens demand 0 taxes you will know why this libertarian nonsense is just communism in disguise, t...
I can build wealth, become a landlord and charge rent all well improving the lives of everyone i interact with, no coercion needed. I personally bear the risk of failure if the market does not require my property.
Accretive, increases value for society.
I can not gain the position of king or maintain it, even in the best case scenario where are the majority of the population agrees to elevate my status with zero violence. There will always be at least one who disagrees and must be violently forced to conform their behavior. All taxation under this system is not consensual, everyone understands at some level the incentives are misaligned. The stolen money can never have the same value to the ones who did not earn it and because of this should be immediately considered malinvestment.
Dissipative, Pyrrhic, net negative decreasing value for society.
The point is in the first scenario all parties have choice and all incentives are correctly aligned. Profit flows to those who benefit others, reinforcing systems of cooperation, mutual benefit.
In the second taxation system can only destroy value for all as we can never know how the misappropriated value would have been spent, invested, saved when the person who worked for the money has a choice in what to do with it.
It really looks like you're trying to incorporate all common informal fallacies into a single idea but i assume he already know this. You must be fishing for counter arguments.
