Frankly what's the difference? The difference is so called wage slavery is working for money for yourself. Tax slavery is working for money for other people.
Around a week ago Idiot Savant posted on how he thought people couldn't truly be free if they had to work to pay the rent, pay for food etc. They could only truly be "free" if they could decide for themselves how to spend their time, essentially, if they didn’t need to work to have enough money to live.
He believes that employment is “wage slavery” and that the government should provide a guaranteed minimum income that would allow everyone to be housed, clothed, fed and essentially maintain some sort of basic existence (which in many developing countries would be called rich). Only then, does he believe, will people be truly free because they could do what they want with their own time. You could spend your whole life in leisure, start up business, be an artist or whatsoever. Freedom?
Well he neglects to note the obvious point that the “government” does not create money out of thin air (or rather when it does it is called inflation), and has to take the money for such an income from everyone else. The person bludging (which IS what it is) on the guaranteed minimum income may be “free”, but it enslaves everyone who DOES work for an income, or earns income by any means. What happens if half the working age population decides to take a break? Those who don’t must work and pay tax sufficient for themselves, their families and those of the “free”. That is tax slavery. By what moral measure should the existence of others force you to sustain them – and Idiot Savant wants you to do so unconditionally. Because someone having to do something for a living is slavery.
It’s not. It’s reality. If everyone sat back wanting their guaranteed minimum income, everyone would starve. Short of having been gifted (such as through inheritance) or winning a substantial sum, people have to sell their services – as a combination of mind and body – for others to exchange it for money, or goods and services. It is reality. The same reality states that if a house isn't maintained, the roof may leak, or it may catch fire, or the piles may collapse. It is not "slavery" that you need to maintain assets like this to avoid certain risks.
It is reality.
Leisure is a luxury, the wealthier and more productive people have become, the more leisure they have. The answer to more leisure is not to pay people to be unproductive, but to set people free to be as innovative and productive as they wish, within the bounds of individual rights.
That, you see, is what Idiot Savant and Chris Trotter do not understand. They are stuck in the Marxist mindset that employers have their boots at employees' necks. Perhaps when either of them have established businesses, mortgaged homes, worked extensive hours for nothing to make a business work, and then hire people, can they truly judge what it is to be an employer - and stop thinking they all look and act like Montgomery Burns.
Around a week ago Idiot Savant posted on how he thought people couldn't truly be free if they had to work to pay the rent, pay for food etc. They could only truly be "free" if they could decide for themselves how to spend their time, essentially, if they didn’t need to work to have enough money to live.
He believes that employment is “wage slavery” and that the government should provide a guaranteed minimum income that would allow everyone to be housed, clothed, fed and essentially maintain some sort of basic existence (which in many developing countries would be called rich). Only then, does he believe, will people be truly free because they could do what they want with their own time. You could spend your whole life in leisure, start up business, be an artist or whatsoever. Freedom?
Well he neglects to note the obvious point that the “government” does not create money out of thin air (or rather when it does it is called inflation), and has to take the money for such an income from everyone else. The person bludging (which IS what it is) on the guaranteed minimum income may be “free”, but it enslaves everyone who DOES work for an income, or earns income by any means. What happens if half the working age population decides to take a break? Those who don’t must work and pay tax sufficient for themselves, their families and those of the “free”. That is tax slavery. By what moral measure should the existence of others force you to sustain them – and Idiot Savant wants you to do so unconditionally. Because someone having to do something for a living is slavery.
It’s not. It’s reality. If everyone sat back wanting their guaranteed minimum income, everyone would starve. Short of having been gifted (such as through inheritance) or winning a substantial sum, people have to sell their services – as a combination of mind and body – for others to exchange it for money, or goods and services. It is reality. The same reality states that if a house isn't maintained, the roof may leak, or it may catch fire, or the piles may collapse. It is not "slavery" that you need to maintain assets like this to avoid certain risks.
It is reality.
Leisure is a luxury, the wealthier and more productive people have become, the more leisure they have. The answer to more leisure is not to pay people to be unproductive, but to set people free to be as innovative and productive as they wish, within the bounds of individual rights.
That, you see, is what Idiot Savant and Chris Trotter do not understand. They are stuck in the Marxist mindset that employers have their boots at employees' necks. Perhaps when either of them have established businesses, mortgaged homes, worked extensive hours for nothing to make a business work, and then hire people, can they truly judge what it is to be an employer - and stop thinking they all look and act like Montgomery Burns.
3 comments:
don't be a moron: wage slavery is not "working for money for yourself". Look it up on wikipedia. It is working for a BOSS under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma. That's why workers' self-management of the means of production is not wage slavery. You confuse the subordination of man to nature (having to work for a living) with the subordination of man to man (having to work for a boss). A chattel slave has o work for a boss under threat of a beating. A wage slave has to work for a boss under threat of starvation. You favor the latter, so you should change the name of your blog fro "liberty Scott" to "slavery Scott"
Jonathan : Take your own advice, throw away the Engels and think outside your angry little hatred of the productive and get help. If you choose to be a wage slave (I assume no one Shanghai's you) then that's your problem.
I've never worked for a boss who threatened me with starvation, poverty or social stigma. Whether you starve in a welfare state is up to you, nobody forces you to work for anyone - you could work for yourself, but you're incapable of conceiving of being so entrepreneurial. Nobody has to work for a boss. If you find it difficult to get someone to employ you then think about where you are and what you have to offer, if it isn't compelling, then think about offering something different.
Why does anyone owe you a living?
Workers' self management is of course fine, feel free to buy out a business, and succeed or fail on merits.
What I find curious are those who clearly either choose bosses who are lousy to them, or provoke bosses to be lousy to them. Most bosses I have had have been a delight to work for, and appreciate my efforts and increase my pay, maybe because I don't piss them off, do more than my job expects and I earn respect.
You're the moron if you think being fired (which is being told your services are no longer worth anything to the employer) is being threatened with starvation, like being threatened with a beating. It is a non-sequiter. Your boss doesn't deny you food, just doesn't buy your labour - you can sell labour/services to others whether employers or consumers.
If you're too inept to do that, then why should anyone be forced to help? At that point you can rely on charity because many like helping the nearly useless.
It troubles me that the veiws expressed have been totally done so within the confines of the monetary system.
There is no need for anyone to succome to subservience. The technology required to automate society exists and has existed since the 1960's, there fore freeing people to pursue far more worthwhile pursuits than the attainment of money i.e. the energy crisis and global imperialism (by banks), which are actual real physical issues that affect every single person on earth.
Money is created out of debt and is handed out on the promise that it will be returned with interest creating more and more debt, meaning that people must pursue money in order to pay off debt that they can never pay and which was imposed on them in the first instance. The monetery system is there to restrict resources and keep people occupied through employment, so that real issues can never be addressed and the interests of the powerful few can be met. We have the resources to abolish working culture and every crisis that humanity faces, but you're all too concerned about attainment or terrified of having to make a stand alone (I am Guilty of the latter). Until people open their eyes to reality of this situation we will forever be "wage slaves" and the trends within our "growth through wealth" mentality will only exaserbate itself.
Sorry, but we all really do need to open pur eyes and realise that there is no need for any kind of slavery and that an economy based on facing issues with the available resources, rather than, Competing for power and status through the attainment of money, is the only thing that will bring us within dreaming distance of any kind of "real" freedom
Post a Comment