“Mandatory service” is not sustainable else you would still see slavery around. “Mandatory civil service” does not depend on a government funded by taxes? Somewhere a surplus (aka profit) must be generated else what is there to tax.
Like I said, taxes are essentially an abstraction over mandatory service. Currently, 3 months out of each year, my work belongs to the government. They also don't care whether I have the "profit" to pay them; if I can't pay my living expenses after paying my taxes, that's my problem to figure out. The taxes are due regardless. That aside, I don't know why you'd characterize it as "unsustainable". There are countries with mandatory military service today and they're doing fine. Slavery is perfectly sustainable; it existed across the globe for thousands of years. There are reasons it's not great, but sustainability isn't one.
> Currently, 3 months out of each year, my work belongs to the government. They also don't care whether I have the "profit" to pay them;... The taxes are due regardless.
In Western countries tax due depends on there being some surplus to tax and if there is insufficient surplus there is no tax and you may qualify for government benefits instead. Taxes paid can only be earned sustainably from activities that generate a surplus. How else could it be?
> There are countries with mandatory military service today and they're doing fine.
How many of these countries have governments that do not depend on taxes? If the government depend on taxes and military service depends on government then military service depends on taxes as well does it not? And if military service depends on taxes it also depends on the surplus that these taxes are collected from else how can military service be sustainable? Solider need food, housing, etc some surplus generating activity must pay for that. It used to be an army would pay for itself by looting etc but clearly that is not sustainable.
> Slavery is perfectly sustainable; it existed across the globe for thousands of years. There are reasons it's not great, but sustainability isn't one.
Societies that use slavery have difficulty competing with ones that do not. If the use of slavery was sustainable why did slave using societies not have the geopolitical power to keep doing it? You think slave owners gave up their slaves from goodness of their hearts?
At least in the US, the government essentially taxes individuals based on revenue, not profit. With some specific limited exceptions, they don't care what your living costs are or how "sustainable" the taxes are for you.
The whole notion of "a surplus" also doesn't really make sense. Beyond food and basic shelter to keep people barely alive, everything can be considered to be "a surplus".
I'm not familiar with how the EU works, but in the US, we control our own currency. Since 1970, there's been 4 years that enough taxes were collected to cover spending. "Governments need taxes to buy things" is not how things work. We've also had a trade deficit since the 70s, so no "surplus" there.
Legal slavery still exists today including in the US (the constitution still explicitly allows it), so I'm not sure where it was outcompeted. But yes people are now uncomfortable with it, and I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. the US abolishes it during my lifetime.
This is again all beside the point, which is just that non-profit-seeking activity is important too.
> At least in the US, the government essentially taxes individuals based on revenue, not profit. With some specific limited exceptions, they don't care what your living costs are or how "sustainable" the taxes are for you.
How it that a significant portion of Americans, typically around 40% to 45%, do not owe federal income taxes? This includes people whose income falls below the standard deduction threshold, which varies depending on filing status, and those who qualify for enough tax credits to offset their tax liability. Does 40-45% of America have no revenue? Where do they live? What do they eat? They have revenue but not surplus revenue (as defined by tax code) so they pay no tax on their revenue.
> The whole notion of "a surplus" also doesn't really make sense. Beyond food and basic shelter to keep people barely alive, everything can be considered to be "a surplus".
That some complain about Western “basic food” and “basic shelter” is an indicator of how wealthy we are. Add to this “basic medicine”, “basic safety and rights”, “basic entertainment”, “basic transportation”.... What fraction of the global population alive today would trade places with those who enjoy these modern western “basics”? Same question but roll back time a few centuries? On the flip side, would you be willing to have your family and friends trade places with random people from centuries ago?
> I'm not familiar with how the EU works, but in the US, we control our own currency. Since 1970, there's been 4 years that enough taxes were collected to cover spending. "Governments need taxes to buy things" is not how things work. We've also had a trade deficit since the 70s, so no "surplus" there.
You raise tangential topics that it would take paragraphs to explain. Hopefully readers will not be confused.
> Legal slavery still exists today including in the US (the constitution still explicitly allows it), so I'm not sure where it was outcompeted.
You seriously believe today there is slavery in America? EU? Do you think your credibility improves when you argue as you do above?
> This is again all beside the point, which is just that non-profit-seeking activity is important too.
How did you read my words and reach the conclusion that I think non-profit-seeking activity is unimportant?
How wealth is spent is far *more important* than how wealth is created since if you are going to squander wealth what is the point of creating it. Notice to spend and benefit from wealth you have to create it and profit is a measure of wealth creation.