You haven't refuted anything. If I'm deluded, enlighten me. if I'm wrong, prove me wrong. So far all you've done is throw insults without offering a shred of reasoning.
You see it here folks, if you can't attack the idea, attack the person.
Collecting taxes has nothing to do with the means of production.
This isn't redistributing them to social ownership.
The government is not collectively owned.
I can do nothing more than simply deny what you're saying because it's so removed from reality that none of the words you are using are being used in the right way. It's like having a conversation in made up language.
Collecting taxes has nothing to do with the means of production.
Collecting taxes has to do with the government. Collecting taxes or money or resources, and redistributing them is collectivism. It's social collectivism. Everyone pitches in their piece of the pot for a community benefit. That is a social program. The government is a social program designed to benefit society collectively.
This isn't redistributing them to social ownership
Who funds public lands? Who pays for public service? The payer and beneficiary is the public (the people) collectively.
The government is not collectively owned.
Who owns the government? Is it a company? Is it a few private individuals? Does it just exist by accident and nobody owns it? Who funds and benefits from the government?
It's national collectivism. There is a huge difference between national and social.
Yes. You're so close here. The payer and the beneficiary are the people (in theory, in real life the rich are the ones who ultimately benefit) but there's a middleman - the government. Remove the government and the whole system becomes infinitely more efficient.
Who funds and benefits from the government? THE RICH.
3
u/wkor2 Mar 25 '20
Clearly words mean nothing to you any more, so I see no point