Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right? The rest is just a matter of degree.
> beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself
You missed this part. Yes you can mandate cooperation (read: enslave) to protect fundamental liberty (police, courts, military, rights of way, etc). You can even literally enslave people by drafting them into the army if your liberal nation is under attack.
What you you can't do in a free society is enslave people to pay for healthcare, education, social security, or anything else unrelated to protecting fundamental liberty from a direct threat. The mandate of the federal government was thus limited until US v. Butler (1936). There are no contradictions here, this is literally how it used to work. This is what liberty used to mean. Being free to do anything that directly injures no one else.
> You say it like it’s a bad thing.
Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy. It's not escapable. Pretending you have a right not to feel it is absurd.
> Seizing 100% of a person's economic output is slavery right?
This is a ridiculous argument. Just because the statement is true, doesn’t mean it follows that you can measure enslavement as a percentage of economic output or that any value greater than zero is “indistinguishable” from slavery. You’re just trolling.
I mean, if I have to spend 100% of my economic output supporting my sick partner because there is no healthcare safety net, by your own definition I am now enslaved by your kind of “liberty” - entirely because it is dogmatically closed to any kind of mandated cooperation.
What a world you dream to live in - a nightmare for all but the strongest.
> beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself
I ignored this because, conveniently, you also get to choose what constitutes “the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself” - making your reasoning perfectly circular. “It is this way because it must be this way”.
> Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy
Society can work to reduce fear, and increase joy. But these are not the likely outcomes of the world of your fever dreams.
> US v. Butler (1936)
I am not familiar with US case law but my understanding is that this case reinforced the limitations on the federal government. In any case it reads like yet another cartoonish non-sequitur.
Here’s where I’m going to get of this bus of stupid.
> beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself
You missed this part. Yes you can mandate cooperation (read: enslave) to protect fundamental liberty (police, courts, military, rights of way, etc). You can even literally enslave people by drafting them into the army if your liberal nation is under attack.
What you you can't do in a free society is enslave people to pay for healthcare, education, social security, or anything else unrelated to protecting fundamental liberty from a direct threat. The mandate of the federal government was thus limited until US v. Butler (1936). There are no contradictions here, this is literally how it used to work. This is what liberty used to mean. Being free to do anything that directly injures no one else.
> You say it like it’s a bad thing.
Fear is just as inevitable a part of life as joy. It's not escapable. Pretending you have a right not to feel it is absurd.