The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational. — Apr 21, 2023
Basically, yes. — Tzeentch
that the fact that the individual can try to resist, so therefore the state does not hold a monopoly on violence is misleading. There is obviously some threshold at which point the entry barrier becomes too high to overcome, at which point we start viewing things as monopolies. That goes for companies and states alike. — Tzeentch
Possibly so. In a theoretical case where violence is taken out of the picture completely, I would argue distribution by those remaining forms of power is preferable, albeit not perfect either. — Tzeentch
However, the means of arbitration that states use - unilateral imposition under threat of violence - is arguably the absolute worst way to do it, hence my protests. — Tzeentch
So my version of what I think is my property (shared property) involves massively more 'theft' by private corporations than by governments, hence my different priorities. — Isaac
I need an entity big and tough enough to fight the corporations. — Isaac
Why? Bearing in mind we're talking about the threat of violence here. — Isaac
So we have threat of violence vs theft. You either have your stuff taken because someone bigger than you demands it (and you're sensible enough not to fight), or you have your stuff taken by someone more deceptive than you when you're not looking.
In each case you can do something about it (get stronger or get cleverer), but those options are limited (there'll always be someone stronger than you and always be someone cleverer than you). So you get your stuff taken in either case, and there's little you can do about it. I just can't really see the big difference. — Isaac
People can resist only theoretically (the same as people can theoretically resist the violence of the government), but in practice it's just too hard for most so they are forced, against their will, to work according to the terms set by the capitalist class. — Isaac
That's fair enough.
The current status quo involves a massive amount of coercion too. I suppose we just value the two differently. — Tzeentch
It's all hypothetical of course, but assuming violence is completely off the table as we've discussed, and that means you are not being deprived of your basic needs, why even care about big corporations at that point?
Let them build their sand castles.
The difference to me is, I would not be forcibly made complicit in what the big corporations get up to, in the way I am now being made complicit in what my government gets up to.
This is a real problem for me. Because the state makes me a part of its wicked scheme, I am forced to care, and protest. — Tzeentch
This is a real problem for me. Because the state makes me a part of its wicked scheme, I am forced to care, and protest. — Tzeentch
A difference would be, in one case resistance is met with possible bodily harm and your loss of freedom. In the other, resistance seems perfectly acceptable, and the price, at most, seems material possessions(?).
That's a big difference, because to me resistance to being made complicit is an ethical duty. — Tzeentch
A point that’s almost always glossed over when discussing wage jobs. “You’re free to go elsewhere, you consented to it.” Way too cavalier, and ignores reality.
As justified as saying “don’t like the state? Leave the country.” Which I’ll often say; the connection is not readily understood, in my experience. — Mikie
The problem with the argument @Tzeentch and @NOS4A2 are putting forward (as I believe we've discussed before) is that property rights are not intrinsically connected to violence.
The government could, quite easily, simply take what it believes is its property without any violence at all. I could just remove the money from you bank account. It could rock up to your house whilst you're out, break in, and take your stuff. Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop).
It sounds like you can base it on non-violence, but it still revolves around property rights, when it comes to taxes.
But, but but,... is not tax only possible if there is private property? And therefore a feature of non-communist regimes?
Tax evasion and tax fraud aren’t crimes in the UK? — NOS4A2
You also disclosed that you profit from tax collection insofar as you draw from the government’s finances. — NOS4A2
The low hanging fruit in the US and elsewhere is to reign in corporate power, as we’ve done before — with far better socioeconomic results. — Mikie
I care about democracy and autocracy. In other words, if someone acts against civil liberties, I don't care if he is left or right. — Jacques
Taxes are necessary for any regime that cannot generate its own revenue. — NOS4A2
I don't see how the one follows from the other. It's perfectly possible for laws opposing civil liberties to receive sufficient support to be implemented in democracies.
There's nothing intrinsic about the method by which a government is chosen which prevents that government from restricting civil liberties. — Isaac
I have noticed that both right-wing and left-wing radicals get along very well when it comes to restricting citizens' freedoms and to support dictators. — Jacques
I have nothing against conservatives or progressives as long as they are moderate and as long as they prioritize the preservation of civil liberties above all else. — Jacques
According to the government, your words alone might make any scrupulous tax man report you to the authorities, submitting you to investigation — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.