| That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I'm sincerely astounded how bad it is and it gets worse the more I think about it. To start, it shows a complete lack of respect for the right of ownership. Under this system you wouldn't own anything and would be subjected to compensated theft regularly. This system would simultaneously represent the worst ideas of what Socialist and capitalistic life can be. To an anti-socialist, socialism represents theft. The problem is the forcible reappropriation of assets. The justification for this is twofold: property being theft in itself & it being immoral to deprive the in-need of assets you don't need. Private property represents theft since claims must begin somewhere and that somewhere is the state of nature, the commons. In our imagined socialist commonwealth, goods ought to be for the benefit of all. The problem with this is that some goods are exclusive by nature. Only I can wear the clothes on my back, it's more hygienic if we have a toothbrush each and frankly we should have enough goods that, in general, we don't need to argue over use. For this socialists make a distinction between private and personal property. This distinction diminishes possession but at least it comes from a place of wanting help for others. Mandatory sales mean your rights are trumped by capital, or more accurately those holding it. If mandatory sales apply literally to all goods then go ahead and take the clothes off my back. There's little room for dignity when those richer than you can take even the most sentimental of belongings. Why don't we go a step further? Apply the concept the any service a person may provide, recognise that sex work is real work and you've just legalised rape. This may seem a disproportionate response but I'm sick of people being so detached that they think reengineering society is something to be taken lightly. Reminds me of a sketch which had the line > Have you tried 'raise VAT' and 'kill all the poor'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg I'm sure any objection I have could be rebutted with something which amounts to 'there are loopholes'. |
Yo I see your point but that simply logically doesn't work. You can't get taxed for a service that you don't provide, so just set your rate to infinity.