this was going to be a reply but instead I'm MAD so in my country the state houses, clothes, feeds and provides healthcare to the poor (not as well as i'd like but it does) how many people should freeze, starve or die of a curable illness for, say, an income tax of 0%?
-
Show this thread
-
don't hit me with "charities / consenting groups will take care of the poor in a stateless society" because most philanthropy is motivated by tax incentives and no charity on the planet is more effective at providing these things than a well run state give me a number of dead
3 replies 0 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
"the state FORCES me to tell it how much money i make" that's so it can tax you so it can defend the borders you cower behind, and reduce the number of people who die for the sin of being poor call me a bleeding heart commie but i prefer people don't die for being "useless"
1 reply 0 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
i'm not interested in explanations for how the free market will provide for those incapable of being useful, because the presence of wealth implies poverty and the state is, when at it's best, a bulwark against poverty implying death give me the number of dead you desire
1 reply 0 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
you know what enforces "legibility"? the crushing weight of mandatory utility under capitalism. The state doesn't even come close to the levels of "destroy you for not fitting in a box" that markets do the state protects against not fitting in a "useful" box meaning death
2 replies 0 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
yes, it does this badly yes, markets/capitalism is the best system we have yes, the commies were wrong no, "free markets" can never provide for the "useless", and destroying support structures because you're mad they're mandatory will kill people so, how many should die?
1 reply 0 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
i know some of my followers/mutuals on here are hard core "state bad" libertarians and please know i don't hate you or think you're evil, but i think the political ideology you support implies a kind of passive genocide, and every now and then i'm gonna get a little mad about it
9 replies 0 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ollyrobot
keep working through this and youll get first to the blackpill and then to the clearpill
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
eigenrobot Retweeted eigenrobot
this may be of usehttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1036921158094880768 …
eigenrobot added,
eigenrobot @eigenrobotgosh this is such a bummer to read yeah any policy implemented at scale, no matter how well designed, is going to have some bad results some subset of such policies is worth implementing anyway because the net benefits in some sense outweigh the net costs https://twitter.com/AlexandraErin/status/1004400861865488384 …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
:•: Retweeted eigenrobot
fuck already went "big fucking mood right there" out loud in my living room at 2:11 in the amhttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1036921234498281472?s=20 …
:•: added,
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
to answer more directly though any broadscale social scheme is going to have major problems with deadweight loss, moral hazard, adverse selection, and a bunch of other things that make it actually incredibly hard to get nice universal outcomes
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
the entire point of third way liberalism was that "lets have some transfers and tax progressively but otherwise just let the engine of the market fucking GO" cuts around a lot of these problems and solves most of the object level problems you mention
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.