> The only way to make that happen is to coerce people to stop at a level of particular of consumption, and that is something I want no part of.
What a non sequitur.
Suppose I draw the line of what is necessary very low: we should not turn bleeding people away from the emergency room; we should not literally allow people to starve in the streets without providing limited quantities of inferior food.
Providing these things in no way requires "coercing" everyone to settle for the emergency room and foodstamps.
Now suppose you draw the line higher. For a really communist example, suppose everyone may receive an apartment and a food stipend in return for a modest amount of work. This also does not require coercing everyone not to get more.
Because you can just make more money yourself, and trade it for the extra stuff that isn't being provided to you.
The place where 'coercion' enters in is taxes, which are a legitimate part of the US Constitution and have been collected for eons, even if you think they are immoral out of some Randian horror of Stalinism.
What a non sequitur.
Suppose I draw the line of what is necessary very low: we should not turn bleeding people away from the emergency room; we should not literally allow people to starve in the streets without providing limited quantities of inferior food.
Providing these things in no way requires "coercing" everyone to settle for the emergency room and foodstamps.
Now suppose you draw the line higher. For a really communist example, suppose everyone may receive an apartment and a food stipend in return for a modest amount of work. This also does not require coercing everyone not to get more.
Because you can just make more money yourself, and trade it for the extra stuff that isn't being provided to you.
The place where 'coercion' enters in is taxes, which are a legitimate part of the US Constitution and have been collected for eons, even if you think they are immoral out of some Randian horror of Stalinism.