• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think “freedom” resonates emotionally in different ways for different people. If you try to pass a law making it illegal to drink bleach, I will oppose that law. I certainly don’t want to drink bleach, but right now I have the freedom to drink it and you would be trying to take away that freedom. It has value to me even though I intend never to exercise it.

    Taxes, unlike drinking bleach, are a matter of trade-offs. I’m not categorically against them. However, I don’t buy into the argument that I shouldn’t oppose them as long as I will never have to pay them.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well I guess I would say that if obscene wealth disparity is against public interest, which it is. We should curtail it. Personal freedoms that rub against public interests are always going to be a point of contention, that’s why we would need good laws, not just willy nilly ones.