Modern Slavery

[Silvanus]

You should read The Excluded Americans or something similar to help you understand the issues that landlord/tenant conflicts create.
The complexity of renting is not nearly as simple as you make it out. Not even close.

I understand the dynamic quite well enough, thank you. I live in a city where landlords make enormous amounts of money through sky-high rent, without bothering to perform basic maintenance or respond to concerns. They routinely abuse deposits, ignore communication, or end tenancies for little reason other than hiking the rent further on the next incumbents. And we have zero recourse. They have a solid income without even needing to actually perform any of the duties they're supposed to.

Taxation could absolutely fit into a definition of exploitation, which is akin to slavery.

This has already been addressed. Its bollocks. Slavery has a specific definition which involves forcefully compelled labour. Taxation categorically does not fit.

"Exploitation" is a value judgement. If you want to apply it to taxation, a system that exists in every society on the planet, that's up to you. But don't misuse other terms with specific definitions.

I don't recall that "graduate" lamenting that he has to work for basic necessities volunteering an intention to work at all.

So you... are just assuming that he intends to never work? Why?

Might be the type of person AOC was referencing: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) tabled a Resolution on the United States ... New Deal would take care of people who are “unwilling to work””. "

Ocasio-Cortez paying those “unwilling to work” in Green New Deal FAQs was an admission, not a mistake

Those FAQs put progressive meat on the bare bones of the legislative Resolution, and was an admission of the policy goals of those behind the GND.

legalinsurrection.com

OK. So a question. Let's assume that phrase refers to people who just choose not to work, and claim benefits. We don't know that, because it was a vague phrase from a now-removed summary that was then deemed an error. But let's assume that.

Why are you overwhelmingly focused on them, rather than the uber-wealthy parasitic class of shareholders and investors who take so, so, so, so, so, so, so much more from the system? You've been suckered by a right-wing outrage industry into directing your ire towards a politically powerless, minuscule minority of people taking a relatively tiny amount of resources, and ignoring the actual drivers of inequity and theft.

Sure sounds like a form of forced indenture of unwilling people.

It's literally not. That's unequivocally not what those words mean. They are unequivocally not being forced to work. They can quit and work elsewhere. If you think it's a form of "forced indenture", you're simply wrong.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Gorfias, remember not that long ago when a high profile politician promised to help ordinary Americans by draining the metaphorical swamp of the 1%?

Without going into whether or not they meant it or whether or not they were part of the swamp, what that person on tktok was complaining about was one of the problems that draining the swamp could have fixed. The basic idea was popular because it was so obviously the right thing to do.

I understand the dynamic quite well enough, thank you. I live in a city where landlords make enormous amounts of money through sky-high rent, without bothering to perform basic maintenance or respond to concerns. They routinely abuse deposits, ignore communication, or end tenancies for little reason other than hiking the rent further on the next incumbents. And we have zero recourse. They have a solid income without even needing to actually perform any of the duties they're supposed to.

And, on a related note, assuming you didn't have any information beyond this one segment, how many guesses would it take to guess what city Silvanus means? Several dozen?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

And, on a related note, assuming you didn't have any information beyond this one segment, how many guesses would it take to guess what city Silvanus means? Several dozen?

All of them.

... except maybe anywhere in NSW and QLD because there's no mention of hazardous levels of black mold infestation.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Taxation is not theft, despite what sovereign citizens would like to claim.

As someone who lives in a country where the government owes me more via per-capita public debt than I "owe" it in student debt, but I'm not legally permitted to discharge my "debt" but I'll never see a dime of what the government owes me...

...and whose government writes a blank check for unconstitutional surveillance programs and foreign military boondoggles, while incessantly cutting welfare and social security programs which actually benefit the people whilst providing documented positive returns on investment in terms of YoY GDP growth...

...while deregulating and outright refusing to prosecute white-collar crime, even on such a scale as threatening the global economy, while summarily executing minorities on the streets without substantive consequences...

...and bailing out the white-collar criminals for their malfeasance, while socializing cost and gaslighting the people it's actually their fault and the only corrective measure is a global recession, on a scale heretofore unseen in human history...

lol. It's absolutely fascinating that a self-professed socialist, in our year of the lord 2023, would have the absolute gall to even try to say in any vestige of seriousness that taxation under late-stage capitalism isn't theft, and that presumptively only RWE's would claim as much.

 

[Silvanus]

lol. It's absolutely fascinating that a self-professed socialist, in our year of the lord 2023, would have the absolute gall to even try to say in any vestige of seriousness that taxation under late-stage capitalism isn't theft, and that presumptively only RWE's would claim as much.

Ah yes, because all taxation is the same. Taxing a worker's income in the exact way the US currently does is identical to taxing a corp's profits, so tax is inherently theft.

Its fascinating to me that someone who supposedly believes in communitarian funding systems, redistribution, and centrally funded essential services like healthcare, would say with an apparently straight face that funding it through tax-- no matter the source-- is theft.

"Self-professed socialist", he says sneeringly, apparently ignorant of the fact that almost every form of socialism ever devised has involved tax, including Marxism.

 

[Ag3ma]

Ah yes, because all taxation is the same. Taxing a worker's income in the exact way the US currently does is identical to taxing a corp's profits, so tax is inherently theft.

Its fascinating to me that someone who supposedly believes in communitarian funding systems, redistribution, and centrally funded essential services like healthcare, would say with an apparently straight face that funding it through tax-- no matter the source-- is theft.

"Self-professed socialist", he says sneeringly, apparently ignorant of the fact that almost every form of socialism ever devised has involved tax, including Marxism.

I could get someone saying that if money is appropriated and spent on causes unpalatable to voters it's a sort of moral theft, but I don't think giving free ammunition to right wing libertarians is necessarily the smartest tactic for anyone who does, actually, believe in taxation.

 

[Silvanus]

I could get someone saying that if money is appropriated and spent on causes unpalatable to voters it's a sort of moral theft, but I don't think giving free ammunition to right wing libertarians is necessarily the smartest tactic for anyone who does, actually, believe in taxation.

Yep, I could also get it if we're talking about money being spent on unpopular, unwanted causes-- which means that we have to look back to the comment that prompted my reply in the first place, which was Phoenixmgs saying that taxing people to pay for essential safety nets/support for the destitute.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Argle-bargle.

Yeah I'll cut to the chase here.

...taxation under late-stage capitalism...

Funny how you completely failed to notice that part of my statement, and elected to not actually respond to it in favor of equating my beliefs to another in a long line of right-wing ideologies.

 

[Silvanus]

Funny how you completely failed to notice that part of my statement, and elected to not actually respond to it [...]

You don't just get to reframe what I was talking about before you barged in. I said "taxation is not theft" directly in response to someone railing against the idea that taxes should be used to help the destitute.

Not "taxation as it exists under late stage capitalism". "Taxation".

You then dishonestly recast that as a specific incarnation of tax-- and got pissy when I didn't play along, and instead pointed out the inanity of equating a discussion about tax in general with one about a specific form and then furiously accusing people of defending that specific form.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I could get someone saying that if money is appropriated and spent on causes unpalatable to voters it's a sort of moral theft, but I don't think giving free ammunition to right wing libertarians is necessarily the smartest tactic for anyone who does, actually, believe in taxation.

Considering that the job of politicians is in actuality to represent their constituents and thus spend that tax money only on causes that are popular and wanted there's no "moral" needed in front of "theft", it's just outright theft to spend tax money on things the voters as a whole don't want.

 

[Gordon_4]

Considering that the job of politicians is in actuality to represent their constituents and thus spend that tax money only on causes that are popular and wanted there's no "moral" needed in front of "theft", it's just outright theft to spend tax money on things the voters as a whole don't want.

Some people don’t think we should have an armed forces or border control, other want both of those funded to the exclusion of all else. It is not theft if the elected officials ignore the will of those who want either of those things because they are absurd positions held only by fucking idiots.

And constituent representation is not the sole purpose of an elected politician, and you’re smart enough to know that.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Some people don’t think we should have an armed forces or border control, other want both of those funded to the exclusion of all else. It is not theft if the elected officials ignore the will of those who want either of those things because they are absurd positions held only by fucking idiots.

Hence "popular and wanted". There's always going to be fringe idiots who have absurd positions that nobody in their right mind would support. If some people don't think we should have armed forces or border control and some people don't, that's fine. It's when MOST people don't think we should have armed forces or border control and fund them anyway, or when most people think we should and then don't that it becomes theft. They are going against the reason tax money is given to the government in the first place, and that is theft. More specifically, it's fraud. Money is being given under the expectation that it will be used for X and it's not being used for X.

And constituent representation is not the sole purpose of an elected politician, and you’re smart enough to know that.

Actually yes, it is. The whole purpose of every politician is to represent their constituents. Representing the county/city/state/country that voted them into office is the entire reason politicians exist. The fact that politicians actually don't in reality actually do represent their constituents doesn't change the fact that that's the purpose of all politicians.

 

[tstorm823]

You don't just get to reframe what I was talking about before you barged in. I said "taxation is not theft" directly in response to someone railing against the idea that taxes should be used to help the destitute.

Not "taxation as it exists under late stage capitalism". "Taxation".

You then dishonestly recast that as a specific incarnation of tax-- and got pissy when I didn't play along, and instead pointed out the inanity of equating a discussion about tax in general with one about a specific form and then furiously accusing people of defending that specific form.

Hey look, the exact thing you do whenever I talk to another user.

 

[Ag3ma]

Considering that the job of politicians is in actuality to represent their constituents and thus spend that tax money only on causes that are popular and wanted there's no "moral" needed in front of "theft", it's just outright theft to spend tax money on things the voters as a whole don't want.

That depends.

It is the job of elected representatives to represent their electorate. However, that doesn't mean doing exactly what their voters want: if it did, why would be bother with representative democracy?

Elected representatives are paid to represent the best interests of their electorate, using their independent judgement. The best interests of an electorate are not necessarily what the electorate democratically wants: not least because much of the electorate lack the knowledge and understanding to make an informed decision. So in practice, an elected representative should consider the wishes of their electorate as part of their decision making, but also needs to overrule it where appropriate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd mention Brexit, the majority voted for it (and some immediately changed their minds and/or died before it happaned, but nevermind), on the assumption that whichever version of Brexit happened, it'd help their country in various ways. Any version of Brexit would disappoint those that didn't want one, and many of those that wanted a different one, but more importantly, totally fail to help their country, and harm it in many ways, as we have seen.

Even assuming that Brexit was the people' will (which is doubtful), not going through with it would have served the people better.

 

[immortalfrieza]

That depends.

It is the job of elected representatives to represent their electorate. However, that doesn't mean doing exactly what their voters want: if it did, why would be bother with representative democracy?

Doing exactly what the voters want IS representative democracy. It doesn't mean those representatives need to ask their constituents for their input on every single issue. It's one thing for a representative have to use their best judgement without the ability to ask voter input and will be will be. However, it's quite another when it's readily apparent that the majority of voters want X, and the representative is not giving them X, or don't want X and the representative is still giving them X. The latter means that representative is not being a representative and so is not doing their jobs.

It doesn't even matter if what the voters want is very obviously negative, if that's what the voters want, it's the job of the representative to do everything possible to give it to them. When it then goes to hell as a result of giving the voters what they want, the voters have to live with the consequences and hopefully make smarter choices next time.

This is why the political system of the United States is such a mess. The representatives are under no obligation to actually give their voters what they want, or even pay any attention to what the voters want at all not to mention fulfill their promises. Even the threat of being voted out isn't much of a threat since the vast majority of the time politicians that got into office in the first place will be voted back in even if they never did a thing their voters wanted them to do.

 

[Ag3ma]

Doing exactly what the voters want IS representative democracy.

In practice, it has rarely if ever been.

There is a theory of representative democracy called "delegate model" which tends to be preferred in some community models where it is the job of a representative to simply report his or her voters' wishes to a decision-making body. However, this not how national representatives have worked, pretty much ever.

You only need to consider the concept of standing for election. Candidates state to the electorate what they stand for, and what their party stands for where relevant, and the people vote for them - but rarely if ever does a party or representative manfesto exactly match an individual voter. How many candidates have you seen say, as an election pitch, "It doesn't matter what I believe, I'm going to poll you on every law I have to vote on and will support your most popular view"? Answer: basically none.

A voter knows perfectly well that their representative has stated beliefs different from their own and that they may act on those beliefs. This covers the "trustee model" where the representatives votes with their own judgement, and a sort of variant of that, the "party model" where the representative vote with the party that they stand for.

One can argue that the voters should be given what they want even if it ruins them. But I think you also need to consider that this does not necessarily breed responsible decision-making in the populace, what it actually does is cause loss of confidence in democracy, ending with its dissolution.

 

[immortalfrieza]

In practice, it has rarely if ever been.

Not particularly relevant. The reality rarely has ever matched the purpose of... well, anything quite frankly. It doesn't change the fact that the purpose of representatives in representative democracy is to do what the voters want them to do, even if it's against the best judgement of the representative in question to do it.

In practice of course it doesn't end up working that way, because if you put people in a position of power they are not going to use that power for what they're supposed to be in that position to do, they're going to exploit that power for their own gains. Even a dictator is placed in the position of absolute authority under the belief by the populace that they will do good for them and then of course once they have that power the dictator just does whatever the dictator wants because they have absolute power and nobody can do anything about it.

One can argue that the voters should be given what they want even if it ruins them. But I think you also need to consider that this does not necessarily breed responsible decision-making in the populace, what it actually does is cause loss of confidence in democracy, ending with its dissolution.

It does breed responsible decision making in politics. By ensuring that the voters are the ones making the decisions, they all share in the benefits and consequences of that decision. As a result, they think more about what decisions they're making and do their best to make informed decisions. The reason that so many voters in the United States are so uninformed is because their representatives aren't actually doing what they want, thus there's zero reason to bother to become informed so they can make informed decisions on what they're voting for since those representatives aren't going to do what they're voting for anyway.

Representatives not doing what the voters want them to do is what causes a lack of faith in democracy. If your choices in how you vote are meaningless, then there's no reason to have any faith in democracy because it's not a democracy. The whole point of a democracy is the people having a voice, and if their voices don't lead to subsequent action then the people don't actually have a voice but are just pretending that they do.

 

[Satinavian]

You only need to consider the concept of standing for election. Candidates state to the electorate what they stand for, and what their party stands for where relevant, and the people vote for them - but rarely if ever does a party or representative manfesto exactly match an individual voter. How many candidates have you seen say, as an election pitch, "It doesn't matter what I believe, I'm going to poll you on every law I have to vote on and will support your most popular view"? Answer: basically none.

The pirate party did that as core policy.
Unfortunately it turned out that voters don't have the time or the patience to actually deliver their opinion on most decisions, even when always asked. Politician is often a full time job for a reason.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It does breed responsible decision making in politics. By ensuring that the voters are the ones making the decisions, they all share in the benefits and consequences of that decision. As a result, they think more about what decisions they're making and do their best to make informed decisions. The reason that so many voters in the United States are so uninformed is because their representatives aren't actually doing what they want, thus there's zero reason to bother to become informed so they can make informed decisions on what they're voting for since those representatives aren't going to do what they're voting for anyway.

Representatives not doing what the voters want them to do is what causes a lack of faith in democracy. If your choices in how you vote are meaningless, then there's no reason to have any faith in democracy because it's not a democracy. The whole point of a democracy is the people having a voice, and if their voices don't lead to subsequent action then the people don't actually have a voice but are just pretending that they do.

Not so. Neither party in the US might be giving people what they want, but that's not at all to say that which party is in power doesn't matter. Trump was (and remainds) a disaster for the US, that could have been seen long in advance, and he only got in because millions of people voter for him anyway.