There are weapons that can permanently paralyze an entire city. Not paralyze infrastructure or traffic... but permanent incurable paralysis of all the people in any area exposed to the weapon. That is still a 20th century technology.
That's a hell of a claim, and unless you're talking about some kind of chemical spray or seeding some weaponized microbe across the city, you could at least post a link or name that explains what it is.
> the economic situation in Europe is much more dire than the US...
Is it, though? The US reports by far the highest levels of lifetime literal homelessness, which is three times greater than in countries like Germany. Homeless people on Europe aren't denied access to free healthcare, primary or even tertiary.
Why do you think the US, in spite of it's GDP, features so low in rankings such as human development index or quality of life?
Yet people live better. Goes to show you shouldn't optimise for crude, raw GDP as an end in itself, only as a means for your true end: health, quality of life, freedom, etc.
In many of the metrics, yeah. But Americans can afford larger houses and more stuff essentially, which isn't necessarily a good replacement for general quality of life things.
> In many of the metrics, yeah. But Americans can afford larger houses and more stuff essentially, which isn't necessarily a good replacement for general quality of life things.
I think this is the sort of red herring that prevents the average US citizen from realizing how screwed over they are. Again, the median household income in the US is lower than in some European countries. On top of this, the US provides virtually no social safety net or even socialized services to it's population.
The fact that the average US citizen is a paycheck away from homelessness and the US ranks so low in human development index should be a wake-up call.
You're missing the point, language can be tricky. Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery. It used to be called corvée. But the words being used have a connotation of something much more brutal and unrewarding. This isn't a political statement, I'm not a libertarian who believes all taxation is evil robbery and needs to be abolished. I'm just pointing out by the definition of slavery aka forced labor, and robbery aka confiscation of wealth, the state employs both of those tactics to fund the programs you described.
> Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery.
Without the state, you wouldn't have wealth. Heck there wouldn't even be the very concept of property, only what you could personally protect by force! Not to mention other more prosaic aspects: if you own a company, the state maintains the roads that your products ship through, the schools that educate your workers, the cities and towns that house your customers... In other words the tax is not "money that is yours and that the evil state steals from you", but simply "fair money for services rendered".
To a large extent, yes. That's why the arrangement is so precarious, it is necessary in many regards, but a totalitarian regime or dictatorship can use this arrangement in a nefarious manner and tip the scale toward public resentment. Balancing things to avoid the revolutionary mob is crucial. Trading your labor for protection is sensible, but if the exchange becomes exorbitant, then it becomes a source of revolt.
> You're missing the point, language can be tricky. Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery.
You're letting your irrational biases show.
To start off, social security contributions are not a tax.
But putting that detail aside, do you believe that paying a private health insurance also represents slavery and robbery? Are you a slave to a private pension fund?
Are you one of those guys who believes unions exploit workers whereas corporations are just innocent bystanders that have a neutral or even positive impact on workers lives and well being?
No, I'm a progressive and believe in socialism. But taxation is de facto a form of unpaid labor taken by the force of the state. If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. It is both robbery and slavery, and in the ideal situation, it is a benevolent sort of exchange, despite existing in the realm of slavery/robbery. In a totalitarian system, it become malevolent very quickly. It also can be seen as not benevolent when the exchange becomes onerous and not beneficial. Arguing this is arguing emotionally and not rationally using language with words that have definitions.
social security contributions are a mandatory payment to the state taken from your wages, they are a tax, it's a compulsory reduction in your income. Private health insurance is obviously not mandatory or compulsory, that is different, clearly. Your last statement is just irrelevant because you assume I'm a libertarian for pointing out the reality of the exchange taking place in the socialist system.
I'd be very interested in hearing which definition of "socialism" aligns with those obviously libertarian views?
> If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. It is both robbery and slavery [...] Arguing this is arguing emotionally and not rationally using language with words that have definitions.
Indulging in the benefits of living in a society, knowingly breaking its laws, being appalled by entirely predictable consequences of those action, and finally resorting to incorrect usage of emotional language like "slavery" and "robbery" to deflect personal responsibility is childish.
Taxation is payment in exchange for services provided by the state and your opinion (or ignorance) of those services doesn't make it "robbery" nor "slavery". Your continued participation in society is entirely voluntary and you're free to move to a more ideologically suitable destination at any time.
What do you mean? Is this one of those sovereign citizen type of arguments?
The government provides a range of services that are deemed to be broadly beneficial to society. Your refusal of that service doesn't change the fact that the service is being provided.
If you don't like the services you can get involved in politics or you can leave, both are valid options, while claiming that you're being enslaved and robbed is not.
Not at all. If it happens to you even when you don’t want it and don’t want to pay for it (and are forced to pay for it on threat of violence), that is no service.
Literally nobody alive today was “involved in politics” when the US income tax amendment was legislated.
Also, you can’t leave; doubly so if you are wealthy enough. Do you not know about the exit tax?
Good idea, lets make taxes optional or non enforceable. What comes next. Oh right, nobody pays. The 'government' you have collapses and then strong men become warlords and set up fiefdoms that fight each other. Eventually some authoritarian gathers up enough power to unite everyone by force and you have your totalitarian system you didn't want, after a bunch of violence you didn't want.
We assume you're libertarian because you are spouting libertarian ideas that just don't work in reality.
If nobody pays them, then in a democracy they shouldn’t exist. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the majority of people don’t want to be forced to pay taxes, then why do we pretend to have a democracy and compulsory taxation? It can’t be both.
What you seem to be arguing for is a dictatorship, where a majority of people don’t want something, but are forced into it anyway.
FYI the United States survived (and thrived) for well over a century without income taxes. Your theory that the state immediately collapses without income taxes doesn’t really hold up.
The taxes will be most burdensome for the wealthiest and most productive of institutions, which is generally why these arrangements collapse economies and nations. UBI is hard to implement because it incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity. This creates economic crisis, taxes are basically a smaller scale version of this, UBI is like a more comprehensive wealth redistribution scheme. The creation of a syndicate (in this case, the state) to steal from the productive to give to the non-productive is a return to how humanity functioned before the creation of state-like structures when marauders and bandits used violence to steal from those who created anything. Eventually, the state arose to create arrangements and contracts to prevent theft, but later become the thief itself, leading to economic collapse and the cyclical revolutionary cycle.
So, AI may certainly bring about UBI, but the corporations that are being milked by the state to provide wealth to the non-productive will begin to foment revolution along with those who find this arrangement unfair, and the productive activity of those especially productive individuals will be directed toward revolution instead of economic productivity. Companies have made nations many times before, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
The problem is the "productive activity" is rather hard to define if there's so much "AI" (be it classical ML, LLM, ANI, AGI, ASI, whatever) around that nearly everything can be produced by nearly no one.
The destruction of the labour theory of value has been a goal of "tech" for a while, but if they achieve it, what's the plan then?
Assuming humans stay in control of the AIs because otherwise all bets are off, in a case where a few fabulously wealthy (or at least "onwing/controlling", since the idea of wealth starts to become fuzzy) industrialists control the productive capacity for everything from farming to rocketry and there's no space for normal people to participate in production any more, how do you even denominate the value being "produced"? Who is it even for? What do they need to give in return? What can they give in return?
> Assuming humans stay in control of the AIs because otherwise all bets are off, in a case where a few fabulously wealthy (or at least "onwing/controlling", since the idea of wealth starts to become fuzzy) industrialists control the productive capacity for everything from farming to rocketry and there's no space for normal people to participate in production any more
Why do the rest of humanity even have to participate in this? Just continue on the way things were before without any super AI. Start new businesses that don’t use AI and hire humans to work there.
Because with presumably tiny marginal costs of production, the AI owners can flood and/or buy out your human-powered economy.
You'd need a very united front and powerful incentives to prevent, say, anyone buying AI-farmed wheat when it's half the cost of human-farmed (say). If you don't prevent that, Team AI can trade wheat (and everything else) for human economy money and then dominate there.
But if AI can do anything that human labor can do, what would even be the incentive for AI owners to farm wheat and sell it to people? They can just have their AIs directly produce the things they want.
It seems like the only things they would need are energy and access to materials for luxury goods. Presumably they could mostly lock the "human economy" out of access to these things through control over AI weapons, but there would likely be a lot of arable land that isn't valuable to them.
Outside of malice, there doesn't seem to be much reason to block the non-technological humans from using the land they don't need. Maybe some ecological argument, the few AI-enabled elites don't want billions of humans that they no longer need polluting "their" Earth?
When was the last the techno-industrialist elite class said "what we have is enough"?
In this scenario, the marginal cost of taking everything else over is almost zero. Just tell the AI you want it taken over and it handles it. You'd take it over just for risk mitigation, even if you don't "need" it. Better to control it since it's free to do so.
Allowing a competing human economy is resources left on the table. And control of resources is the only lever of power left when labour is basically free.
> Maybe some ecological argument
There's a political angle too. 7 (or however many it will be) billion humans free to do their own thing is a risky free variable.
The assumption here that UBI "incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity" is the part that doesn't make sense. What do you think universal means? How does it disincentivize productive activity if it is provided to everyone regardless of their income/productivity/employment/whatever?
Evolutionarily, people engage in productive activity in order to secure resources to ensure their survival and reproduction. When these necessary resources are gifted to a person, there is a lower chance that they will decide to take part in economically productive behavior.
You can say that because it is universal, it should level the playing field just at a different starting point, but you are still creating a situation where even incredibly intelligent people will choose to pursue leisure over labor, in fact, the most intelligent people may be the ones to be more aware of the pointlessness of working if they can survive on UBI. Similarly, the most intelligent people will consider the arrangement unfair and unsustainable and instead of devoting their intelligence toward economically productive ventures, they will devote their abilities toward dismantling the system. This is the groundwork of a revolution. The most intelligent will prefer a system where their superior intelligence provides them with sufficient resources to choose a high-quality mate. If they see an arrangement where high-quality mates are being obtained by individuals who they deem to be receiving benefits that they cannot defend/protect adequately, such an arrangement will be dismantled. This evolutionary drive is hundreds of millions of years old. Primitive animals will take resources from others that they observe to be unable to defend their status.
So, overall, UBI will probably be implemented, and it will probably end in economic crisis, revolution, and the resumption of this cycle that has been playing out over and over for centuries.
> You can say that because it is universal, it should level the playing field just at a different starting point, but you are still creating a situation where even incredibly intelligent people will choose to pursue leisure over labor, in fact, the most intelligent people may be the ones to be more aware of the pointlessness of working if they can survive on UBI.
This doesn't seem believable to me, or at least it isn't the whole story. Pre-20th century it seems like most scientific and mathematical discoveries came from people who were born into wealthy families and were able to pursue whatever interested them without concern for whether or not it would make them money. Presumably there were/are many people who could've contributed greatly if they didn't have to worry about putting food on the table.
> The most intelligent will prefer a system where their superior intelligence provides them with sufficient resources to choose a high-quality mate.
In a scenario where UBI is necessary because AI has supplanted human intelligence, it seems like the only way they could return to such a system is by removing both UBI and AI. Remove just UBI and they're still non-competitive economically against the AIs.
> When these necessary resources are gifted to a person, there is a lower chance that they will decide to take part in economically productive behavior.
Source?
Even if that's true though, who cares if AI and robots are doing the work?
What's so bad about allowing people leisure, time to do whatever they want? What are you afraid of?
There are two things bothering me here. The first bit where you're talking about motivations and income driving it seems either very reductive or implying of something that ought to be profoundly upsetting:
- that intelligent people will see that the work they do is pointless if they're paid enough to survive and care for themselves, and not see work as another source of income for better financial security
- that most intelligent people will see it as exploitation and then choose to focus on dismantling the system that levels the playing field
Which sort of doesn't add up. So there are intelligent people who are working right now because they need money and don't have it, while the other intelligent people who are working and employing other people are only doing it to make money and will rebel if they lose some of the money they make.
But then, why doesn't the latter group of intelligent people just stop working if they have enough money? Are they less/more/differently intelligent than the former group? Are we thinking about other, more narrow forms of intelligence when describing either?
Also
> The most intelligent will prefer a system where their superior intelligence provides them with sufficient resources to choose a high-quality mate. If they see an arrangement where high-quality mates are being obtained by individuals who they deem to be receiving benefits that they cannot defend/protect adequately, such an arrangement will be dismantled. This evolutionary drive is hundreds of millions of years old.
I don't want to come off as mocking here - it's hard to take these points seriously. The whole point of civilization is to rise above these behaviours and establish a strong foundation for humanity as a whole. The end goal of social progress and the image of how society should be structured cannot be modeled on systems that existed in the past solely because those failure modes are familiar and we're fine with losing people as long as we know how our systems fail them. That evolutionary drive may be millions of years old, but industrial society has been around for a few centuries, and look at what it's done to the rest of the world.
> Primitive animals will take resources from others that they observe to be unable to defend their status.
Yeah, I don't know what you're getting at with this metaphor. If you're talking predatory behaviour, we have plenty of that going around as things are right now. You don't think something like UBI will help more people "defend their status"?
> it will probably end in economic crisis, revolution, and the resumption of this cycle that has been playing out over and over for centuries
I don't think human civilization has ever been close to this massive or complex or dysfunctional in the past, so this sentence seems meaningless, but I'm no historian.
I guess the thinking goes like this: Why start a business, get a higher paying job etc if you're getting ~2k€/mo in UBI and can live off of that? Since more people will decide against starting a business or increasing their income, productive activity decreases.
I see more people starting businesses because they now have less risk, more people not changing jobs just to get a pay hike. The sort of financial aid UBI would bring might even make people more productive on the whole, since people who are earning have spare income for quality of life, and people with financial risk are able to work without being worried half the day about paying rent and bills.
It's a bit of a dunk on people who see their position as employer/supervisor as a source of power because they can impose financial risk as punishment on people, which happens more often than any of us care to think, but isn't that a win? Or are we conceding that modern society is driven more by stick than carrot and we want it that way?
not to mention that most corporations in the US are owned by the public through the stock market and the arrangement of the American pension scheme, and public ownership of the means of production is one of the core tenets of communism. Every country on Earth is socialist and has been socialist for well over a century. Once you consider not just state investment in research, but centralized credit, tax-funded public infrastructure, etc. well yeah, terms such as "capitalism" become used in a totally meaningless way by most people lol.
I think you're confusing publicly available shares with actual ownership by the public in a way that's no consistent with the way any socialist would think about ownership. Stock may be available to anyone in the sense that anyone could buy shares, but actual ownership and decision-making is highly concentrated. Real public ownership would mean something quite different.
only country to reverse a revolution? uhh, that's almost like a required stage of every revolution, haha. it's almost more remarkable when a revolution sticks.
the murder rate in American cities is out of control. Maybe Americans are blind to this, but there are 274 murders in DC alone in 2023. In ALL of Germany, there were something like 600 murders in 2023. DC has 730,000 people living there. Germany has 83 million people. What do you mean that DC doesnt have a crisis going on? The homicide rate is 4,500% higher than Germany, lol.
funny to note how Europe is considered more socialist and America more capitalist, but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism, whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments. Of course, not much power is derived through American ownership of the means of production via the stock market because that power is delegated to the institutions who have the actual control, serving the same role as the politburo, for instance, in more ostensibly communist systems.
While the public doesn't have immediate power, it has a lot of freedom. If you manage your retirement fund, you can use it in whatever way you want. Buy a boat. Start a company. Gamble it all away in a week.
A lot of European countries have a much more paternal approach. Citizens can't be trusted to make good decisions, so they only receive part of their salary, and the rest is being managed "for them" - and that's non-negotiable (but there are some exceptions). A lot more stable, but a lot less free because you have a guardian making those decisions for you.
This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners.
This system has its problems, mostly demographics with fewer young people entering the workforce and an unwillingness to fill the gap with immigration, but it has nothing to do with not trusting people to make their own decisions. It’s simply a historically grown approach which actually has worked quite well (and better than in the US for a greater share of society) for over a century.
> This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners.
It is a big Ponzi scheme, and now that fewer people are joining the workforce, governments borrow money to pay pensions. And a duscretiinary power to decide how much a retired worker gets. Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it.
The American way is actually the mote fairer system. Could be even more fair if you did mot have to pay tax on your pension gains from stocks inventments and whatnot.
It would have sucked, but they wouldn’t have been a burden on the current generation back then who did not start the war or went through the great depression.
Depends on your definition of "fair" and if you value that fairness more than social solidarity. I personally do not think it is "fair" that your basic human dignity in retirement statistically depends to a large extend on the wealth and social status of the parents that you were born to. I would actually argue (and many EU constitutions are based around this principle) that no matter your personal or your parents' contribution to the economy or society, you should be guaranteed a certain level of dignity, care and security.
The classical "Old World" social system is based around solidarity. Solidarity of the young with the old, of the healthy with the sick, of the fortunate with the unlucky. It has produced much better results for a far greater share of society and with much less inherent risk than the "everyone for their own" system of ultimate individual responsibility that the US has largely favored. Where it has failed it was largely due to the "neoliberal turn" of the 1990s and 2000s.
It's clearly due for an overhaul, but there are good options to do so. Europe's societies are waelthier, both in absolute term, as well as on average per capital, than they've ever been. What's missing is largely the political will to commit to the principle of solidarity over the resistance of monied interests that would benefit from a stronger turn to individualism. And I challenge you to look at the results of the mostly private health and pensions systems in the US on a factual and comparative basis and claim that they produce inherently better results.
"Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it."
Again, this is not how it works. I.e. in Germany there are actual laws governing the setting of pensions. And while these laws can be changed by parliament (though not by "bureaucrats"), they are rooted in constitutional principles that set guardrails for any reform.
It very much is what happens. Yes, there are _also_ historical reasons for it, but today's arguments are centered around the state's risk that you might mismanage your stuff and require assistance. Hence Germany's insistence of allowing separate forms (with tax-advantages) only via long-term committed insurance policies ("Riester-Rente", "Rürüp-Rente").
You'll see echoes of the same ideas in other parts, be it recreational drug use, gun-ownership, what you're allowed to name your kids, building codes & zoning laws, school laws etc etc.
You can absolutely argue the merit of limiting people's choices, but I don't think you can deny that we do.
You (like many people holding this viewpoint) have a very narrow view of "people's choices", which we could maybe also term "liberty".
I'm personally in the very lucky position of being born to reasonably rich parents. Having benefited from that wealth (and good quality public education and infrastructure), I earn more than the average person. I pay a lot of taxes and public insurance, much more than I probably would in the US. I have very little say in how that money is used and it probably benefits other people much more than it benefits me personally.
Your perspective probably is that my government limits my liberty to handle my money as I see fit. Some people would even go as far as call this system theft.
My perspective is different. There is not only my personal liberty, my freedom to choose at stake. If I don't pay taxes, some kid from a poor family won't benefit from the public education that allowed my parents and myself to become wealthy.
Same with gun-ownership. It has been well established that the US system increases the liberty of owning guns, but at the cost of decreasing the liberty of gun victims to stay alive. Zoning? It might inconvenience my personal liberty to not be allowed to build where I want, but it sure increases the liberty of everyone else to benefit from reduced urban sprawl.
I'm not saying that we can't argue over where the lines should be drawn. But all that discussion of "freedom", "liberty" and "choice" always only focusses on the choice of the person talking and rarely on the choices available to everyone else as a result of individual behavior.
As for drugs, I think it's hard to argue that US drug laws are more liberal than those in many EU countries. If I recall correctly, an immense share of the US prison population is related to drug charges, often for relatively "soft" drugs like Marihuana, that are legal in many instances in the EU.
Yes, liberty is generally about individuals and often juxtaposed with collective interests. Your freedom to choose what to do with your life hurts the interests of the collective that would benefit from some choices more than from others. And Europe is, compared with the US, definitely much more collectivist. I'm happy you agree on the fundamentals!
I think that's perfectly fine and primarily a cultural choice. There's no need to make it a moral question and declare this or that the "right" way.
Europeans tend to mistrust the individual to make good decisions without laws removing choice, I think you've demonstrated that part very clearly. And, that's all I was saying, that is a primary driver for mandatory pension systems that removes people's ability to make their own investment decisions. Again, you'll say that's good and necessary - but it's happening.
You misunderstand my point. The juxtaposition is not between "individual" and "collective" liberties. That's a bit of a separate argument. It is about "your" liberty vs. "mine". You might feel that a ban on guns might limit your liberty. But giving you a gun limits my liberty, because I would feel threatened and unable to express myself fully in a society where I would have to assume that random people on the street carry guns.
It's about your individual liberties limiting someone else's personal liberties. Nothing collective about it. But in public discourse, it is always the liberties that powerful people benefit from disproportionately that are framed as "good". I.e. when there was a concerted push by black liberationists in the US to form armed militias, gun laws were tightened. Now that gun ownership is interpreted mostly as a right valued by disgruntled white people, it is expanded.
Same with equating of control over money and liberty. We live in an age of almost unparalleled wealth accumulation in the hands of the few. I'm sitting on my local council and I can tell you that if we have to increase the fees for school lunches due to low tax revenues, there is nothing "collective" about the ramifications. It will directly and forcefully impact a relatively small number of individual children, whose parents will have significantly (for them) less disposable income as a result, severely limiting their liberty to afford their children a decent start to life.
It is beside the point if I think that someone can or can't make good decisions about the use of their own money. Even if I assume that they'd make much more profit if they invest it on their own, I'd still argue that a healthy society should be based around the principle of solidarity and a wholistic view of individual freedoms, and not just advance the advantage of a select few that have the means to push for their favorite liberties to be prioritized over everyone else's.
> But giving you a gun limits my liberty, because I would feel threatened and unable to express myself fully in a society where I would have to assume that random people on the street carry guns.
Yes, I understand the point. There are others who feel threatened and affected by people of different sexual orientations, even if those people never interact with them different than everyone else. You'll protest, no doubt, their feelings aren't legitimate - those are phobias while yours are rational feelings!
In pretty much every EU member state, you'll have to assume that random people on the street carry guns. Not everyone, not most, but some, none visibly. Would it make you more or less comfortable if the same number of people openly carried the same guns?
"Wholistic view of individual freedoms" sounds to me like a quote from the movie Thank You For Smoking. My memory is terrible, but it goes something like this (context, old movies are being edited to remove cigarettes in order to not promote smoking): "Aren't you altering history" - "No, we are improving history".
I find it much better to just flat out say "the collective over the individual", and not dance around it with fancy terms. Redefining liberties as privileges instead of rights isn't the way to go. Arguing for the merit of something is much better than trying to sneak it in by bending language and concepts.
I'm not defining liberties as privileges, I'm merely pointing out that your right to liberty ends where it infringes on somebody else's (and vice versa). Reasonable people can debate where exactly that line can be drawn and whose interests outweigh the other's (and this is what constitutional courts do on a daily basis). What I'm cautioning against is the narrative that just because it can be defined as "liberty" it must therefore be sacrosanct. This is doubly true for anything related to money, where most invocations of liberty on closer inspection just boil down to "don't tax the millionaires and billionaires".
"In pretty much every EU member state, you'll have to assume that random people on the street carry guns. Not everyone, not most, but some, none visibly. Would it make you more or less comfortable if the same number of people openly carried the same guns?"
You could search 10,000 random people going about their daily business in a major German city and with the exception of members of police and security services, you won't find a firearm. While a private gun ownership permit is reasonably simple to obtain, public open/concealed carry permits are not. And while criminal use of guns certainly exists, actual gun violence is so rare outside interactions between criminals that for any interaction with other members of society in public, the risk of a gun coming into it in any way is so small that in practice it can be ignored.
I've also travelled extensively in the EU and lived in several countries and I haven't seen a single firearm in public with the exception of members of police and security services (though I admit that armed private security services are not uncommon in some countries). Even if concealed carry were the main practice for private gun owners, I doubt that I wouldn't have spotted a gun at some point if it were at all common in a country (I've been in countries outside the EU where gun ownership is much more widespread and where I did see both open and concealed carry).
> I'm not defining liberties as privileges, I'm merely pointing out that your right to liberty ends where it infringes on somebody else's (and vice versa).
Yet you included privileges (like getting tax-funded things) in those liberties that would be affected. That's muddying the waters. I'm sure you're well aware of the escalating utilitarian thought experiments that use the same type of argument ("but many people would benefit from doing X to Y").
On guns: You're moving the goal post from guns being carried to guns being used. Statistically, you don't need to worry about guns being drawn in normal interactions in the USA - it happens, it happens a lot more often than in Europe, but it's not like there's a daily shoot-out at the grocery store unless you live in some areas with a lot of gang activity.
But risk-perception is subjective. Where I spend a month in the US doing average things and expect to not see a single gun being raised, you might expect to see them on two occasions. Is expectation of risk a liberty that's infringed? I don't think so.
There's plenty of good arguments for strong firearm regulation, but it's not a freedom vs freedom thing. There's a right not to be harmed, but it doesn't extend to potential abstract harm.
"Yet you included privileges (like getting tax-funded things) in those liberties that would be affected. That's muddying the waters."
Differentiating between abstract liberties and the economic means to actually make use of them makes no sense to me. If a government guarantees the liberty to choose your profession freely, but the overwhelming majority of the population does not have the economic means to access the education required to become i.e. a doctor, does that liberty have any practical impact whatsoever?
In that sense, a free public education (including university), public health care, public pensions and even social security are not "privileges". They are fundamental rights that form the basis for the expression of liberty. And this is exactly how i.e. the German constitution frames these things. Social security payments explicitly are not a "privilege", they are a right and no government can cut social security payments below a certain threshold (though that threshold will make for a very uncomfortable living).
"I'm sure you're well aware of the escalating utilitarian thought experiments that use the same type of argument ("but many people would benefit from doing X to Y")."
Which is why it is important to build in protections. Modern/progressive democracy is not a "dictatorship of the majority", it is a rights-based system in which certain lines can not be crossed, no matter how benefitial it would be in a utilitarian sense.
"There's a right not to be harmed, but it doesn't extend to potential abstract harm."
It totally does. Again an example from Germany: We have a general prohibition on the surveillance of public spaces by public or private actors. Governmental authorities can supersede this in certain cases, but for private actors, you can't even point a fake camera at a public space, except when everyone using that space explicitly to that (which is impossible i.e. on public roads and already very hard in the common areas of apartment buildings).
The reasoning behind this is that no one should be exposed to even the abstract feeling of being surveilled in public, as this would alter their freedom to express themselves and limit control over their private information. Even employers need to limit incidental surveillance of their employees wherever possible.
"Is expectation of risk a liberty that's infringed? I don't think so."
I completely disagree. Again, it's a matter of degrees and your rights need to be weighed against mine. Often, your concrete expression of your liberties will outweigh the abstract infringement of mine. But sometimes they won't.
If I gamble my pension away, I have detrimental effect on my neighbours and the rest of society. Sure I could work for a little longer, but not for too long.
One non-exhaustive example: If I don’t die right after my last contract ends, it means I’m consuming food and have some kind of shelter, which is payed by somebody.
That's the stability vs risk trade-off, I think. The European approach is much more stable, but stability isn't free.
I'd compare it to investing in the stock market (volatility & good yield) vs investing in government bonds (more secure, you know what you'll get back after they mature, lower yield).
I think what's more important isn't who runs current production, but who can start future production. The people of the US own the means of production because they can legally start their own companies, with relatively low barriers to entry, to replace the ones currently in power.
The US has far more protectionism and other barriers to entry than it did when it seized the means of production from England, through the Boston tea party and the revolution that followed, but it still has enough freedom of business that it easily beats the European Union in pretty much every developing field.
Where the American Revolution differes from communist reviolutions is that, after seizing the means of production from a repressive government, the revolutionaries' new government did not hold onto the means of production through a planned economy, but instead held effectively zero economic oversight, leaving production open to a free market and anyone who wished to participate in it.
> (...) but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism (...)
Do they own it, though?
Or is the US public relegated to a position of financing investment corporations without any ownership or control in exchange for a fraction of the profits and the bulk of the losses?
If anything, the US public seems to be used as a strategy to lower investment risks of investment firms.
> (...) whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments.
The "state-based" aspect which you are casually glancing over refers to full blown income redistribution schemes, where everyone's paycheck, being rich or poor, is proportionally deducted to finance retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, parental leaves, and even medical leaves.
Do you think that paying a corporation to invest in the stock market is more socialist than this?
Do they control it? If you really get right down to it, technically also yes. If the public banded together to get things done, it would get done. But as with anything shared by millions people in the real world there becomes a disconnect between the people and in the chaos of lack of communication and no shared will to get things done a few actors end up usurping control. So in practice, no. But, I mean, that has always been the criticism of socialism — that a few actors end up taking control — so no surprises there.
One of the core tenants of the Communist Party, who believe (on paper, at least) that socialism is the path to enabling post-scarcity.
Communism is an imagined sci-fi world where we've already achieved post-scarcity; Star Trek is a more modern adaptation of the same idea. If it has anything resembling "core tenants", there being no ownership is one of them. It is imagined that in a post-scarcity world, ownership doesn't mean anything.
