The first thing I learned is that Norwegians don't think about taxes the way we do. Whereas most Americans see taxes as a burden, Norwegian entrepreneurs tend to see them as a purchase, an exchange of cash for services. "I look at it as a lifelong investment," says Davor Sutija, CEO of Thinfilm[...].
Probably, especially considering I'm fairly sure we've never met. :)
Don't get me wrong, the Americans I talk to regularly (and work with) aren't complaining about this, but if you get enough foreigners in a room together, there always seem to be a few who like to complain about taxes.
As for the FrP, the ones I know tend to be younger, and while they don't mind complaining about taxes, the real reason they tend towards the FrP is racism, even when they'd rather not admit it.
If that was what they truly thought then there would be no reason to use force to collect taxes, they could just have a recommended donation and collect that. For some reason, I don't think that would work.
This form of mental gymnastics, is very comparable to Nietzsche's analysis of the slave morality - where one alters their values in reaction oppression, so that it becomes moral, or even desirable, to act in a subservient way.
Let's not forget that if it was such a bad deal, they could vote to change things. When's the last time a "slave", using your words, had a vote?
But it takes more than perks to keep a worker motivated in Norway. In a country with low unemployment and generous unemployment benefits, a worker's threat to quit is more credible than it is in the United States, giving workers more leverage over employers. [...] "You can't just treat them like machines," [Bjorn Holte, founder and CEO of bMenu] says. "If you do, they'll be gone."
Because a minority loses out in a democracy, they can either adapt and accept the situation or struggle to change it. Often times it's easier to just change ones own position than to actually do something, that most likely will not succeed and if it does provides limited benefit - the ROI isn't worth it.
For example, I think the taxes are too high:
1. I can complain all the time, and be miserable.
2. I can work to change it - but lets say it takes me 10 hours a week to make any dent at all, and I'll only save 10k -- not worth it.
3. I can wish that it was lower, but do nothing and just live my life as it is. Though, I may feel anger or frustration - negatively impacting my life.
or lastly
4. I can change my position - I guess the taxes are good, I get this stuff that I need, etc. Now I'm happy with my current situation and don't have any need to change it. By changing my perspective I've removed a source of pain in my life, even though it still exists -- I am no longer consciously aware of it.
A little bit more on the concept of slave morality, it applies to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity:
"By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well." [1]
He argues that in early Christianity instead of glorifying standing up to their oppressors, which was difficult and fraught with danger, that they glorified being subservient - when the master hits you turn the other cheek, don't defend yourself
5. Why must one opt out of the economic system?
6. Why must one stop working?
7. Why must one move away from their friends and family, to a foreign land? What if there is nowhere else with lower taxes?
I believe the the observation, about slave morality is being misunderstood.
But more importantly, the crux of my argument is this - if people are truly happy about the level of taxation, then why is it mandatory. For instance, you could have a minimal tax of 5% for core government functions and allow people to contribute any percentage they would above that to fund other various programs - you could even provide a guide. For current government functions to continue at their current level, the suggested donation for individuals at your income level is 55%.
If you don't accept that deal, then it doesn't seem that you are being honest with yourself that you have no problems with the level taxation.
It's an enforceable commitment scheme. I will happily pay if everyone does. If it's optional, most people will become free riders, so I'm not going to be the sucker who bears more than my share while failing to actually solve the problem.
This looks to me as more of an argument against democracy than anything else. Not sure how you intended it. Its definitely interesting. But what would we be if not for democracy or some other form of rule? Anarchy. I don't think that is what I want, at least. It would be back to Darwin and "Survival of the fittest".
Democracy in its pure sense is quite horrible, it's commonly referred to as mob rule. That is why modern democracies are constitutional democracies, the rule of the mob is limited so that minorities are protected.
I do believe that his line of thinking exposes flaws in democracy - it's important to identify flaws in the system so that they can be addressed.
