I don't think communism would work on a large scale, but what about a few large companies competing to sell products at a government-set price level? In this case, government would have extensive regulation powers over companies, to the point where the govt. can set the price point and tell the company, essentially, "You can make money selling this widget for x, if you pay you cut your executive pay by 20%. Looks like a lot of fat there at the top!". Has any fairly large country tried something like that?

, right, anarchy (true individualism, absence of organized state, or whatever) is "unstable" by nature, tending away therefrom, like the 1 anarchist being overcome by 2 cooperators. I guess that's sort of what I meant by ...

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

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. In terms of getting that property at least cared for, I need an entity big and tough enough to fight the corporations. Government are the only contenders. They're very much the lesser of two evils in terms of environmental management, and I consider the environment to be at least partially my property.

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

Yes, this is where I was going with this idea. Effective monopolies in this respect don't have to be very unified or cohesive to have the impact on people's choices, and it's the impact we're concerned about here. It can simply be a facet of an economic system that some strategy is in the best interest of a specific power group. They will all make that decision, and so act as a monopoly. When the government exercise their monopoly on violence, they don't all agree, and they change entirely every few years. Its the institution that acts as a monopoly... So 'CEOs' can equally act as an institution, shopkeepers, estates, etc... You only need look at the way pay disputes are settled. There's only two relevant powers, the unions and the employer's representatives, those two groups act as a monopoly on those services when determining pay and conditions.

To touch back on the topic - the capitalists become an effective monopoly on the means of production which power is used to exploit workers.

Basically, the only reason there's such mass poverty and misery is because the 'entry barrier' as you put it, for resisting wage-slavery options presented by the capitalist class is too high. 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. Pointing to a few entrepreneurs and self-sufficiency buffs to show that there's no absolute stranglehold on the supply of basic needs would be like me pointing to the few countries in civil war and saying "see, there's no monopoly on violence".

There is an effective monopoly on the means of production - the land and raw materials required to make one's own living - and that monopoly is used to extract labour people would otherwise prefer not to give.

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

Why? Bearing in mind we're talking about the threat of violence here. Most people are rational enough to do what the man the with the big gun tells them, so actual bodily harm is not a concern (numbers of people physically harmed by our governments in the Western world is relatively small). 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.

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

As above really, I'm just not seeing it. Threat of violence and theft look exactly the same to me - they have the same outcome and the same limited ability to prevent it.

In one scenario, I have my labour/stuff taken by threat of violence by the government who then use it for their own ends (some of which benefit me) and I have a small amount of say in what they do.

In the other scenario I have my labour/stuff taken from me using manipulation/deception/thievery by the capitalists (owners of the means of production) who then use it entirely for their own profit (some of which benefits me) and I have no say whatsoever in what they do.

I'm not seeing how the second scenario is preferable.

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

That's fair enough.

The current status quo involves a massive amount of coercion too. I suppose we just value the two differently.

I need an entity big and tough enough to fight the corporations. — Isaac

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.

Why? Bearing in mind we're talking about the threat of violence here. — Isaac

Billions of people are being threatened with violence by governments, but millions are being violently assaulted by governments - wars, the prison system, etc.

While coercion is more wide-spread, actual violence is definitely a part of my argument, and it is the capacity for actual violence that underlies the state's power.

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

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.

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

:up:

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.

That's fair enough.

The current status quo involves a massive amount of coercion too. I suppose we just value the two differently. — Tzeentch

Yes, it seems that way.

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

As I said, I think the corporations make us part of their 'wicked schemes' using techniques other than threat of violence. they monopolise resources, for example, which forces us to take part in their system. They monopolise ecosystem services (such as air, rivers, ocean systems) which forces us to take part in their schemes.

From the very moment one farmer said "I own this bit" (picking the most fertile patch, the rest of the world not wanting to be part of that scheme has to live off 'the rest', the land slightly less fertile. The remaining hunter-gatherers are on the most desolate inhospitable land left, and they're still having it forcibly taken from them by corporations claiming ownership (legal trickery, usually). It's testament to their determination and skill that they're still around, but imagine how much easier and (most importantly) more of a reasonable choice their lives would have been with free reign over the most fertile land.

I'm an anarchist when it comes down to it, and I have a great deal of sympathy for your views on government. It's also probably true that without government to back them up, the corporations would never have amassed the power they have. But...

The problem is how we get there from here. Corporations now have that power, they have the resources and they have the land. So removing government influence at this stage seems more than a little reckless. It might work. It might call off their attack dog, so to speak and render them powerless. But I doubt they're going to give up so easily.

Take away the government's monopoly on violence and the corporations will fill that power vacuum in seconds (assuming they haven't already - private contractors outnumber the military of some states).

Take away the government's provision of benefit for the homeless, jobless, disabled and helpless and I suspect private charities would step up to a point, but;

a) there'd be a considerable harm during the transition, and

b) I strongly suspect that the majority of the funding would come from rich philanthropists and companies looking to 'ethics-wash' their image, both of whom are capable (especially without government regulation) of obtaining full monopolies on services. So you'd be paying anyway. If 'National Food Services' (the new food supplying monopoly which bought up all farmland in the country) decides some of its profits are going to help the poor, then helping the poor is part of the price you pay for food, like it or not. No different to taxes.

Again, it's the monopoly that give the institution its power to compel, not the type of institution. Corporations can engineer monopolies easily (especially without government rules banning it) It's easy for them to simply buy up all the mines, all the farmland, all the skilled labour, all the libraries...etc

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

I don't see how. I don't really pay any income tax, for example (a very small sum in reality). I pay goods taxes (VAT, Road, Fuel, Alcohol), but those are added by the vendor, so not my mandate. Barely any of my wages go to the government, and I don't vote, so I'm quite content that I'm not complicit in their schemes.

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

I think this is a good point. The risk of dissent matters and risking bodily harm is clearly worse than risking further loss of goods - to a point (starvation-level loss of goods is identical to physical harm).

But, above. I pay minimal tax. I dissent from funding the government's schemes, I haven't received any bodily harm yet.

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

Yes. Plus, as I've just pointed out above. One needn't pay tax either if one is committed to not supporting some government or other. One can organise one's finances to become a net draw on government finances.

Yes— to say nothing of tax protesting and tax resistance. Each have a long history, as you know— I know some people who have done it for very valid reasons. Last time I checked, none of them were in prison, nor had a “gun placed to their heads.”

Oh, indeed. I hadn't even thought of those. I was just thinking of staying under the tax bracket (is there such a thing in the US?). In England, if one earns lower than a set amount, then one pays no tax. Charitable donations are tax deductible, so I just give away my excess earnings to charity. I don't know if this arrangement is universal, but it works in England. We have this scheme for employment, and the self-employed can use Gift-Aid.

I obviously still pay goods taxes, but one only need take on a few fund-able projects (I help run a community farm, for example) and one can draw out government money for good purposes.

It also just so happens that one of my consultancies is for a government department. I charge them the full going rate (way more than I need) and give the excess away to tax deductible projects. I'm effectively taking money from the government.

I haven't done the maths, but I reckon I must in total, be a net draw on the government's finances to the tune of several thousand ponds a year. I certainly don't net 'contribute' to the pot, and the government would have to work very hard indeed to persuade me to start doing so when the alternatives are so much better right now.

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.

States have certainly streamlined the activity of taking people’s money to the point where violence isn’t necessary. But tax evasion and tax fraud is still punishable by law and carries with it a range of life-altering penalties, from fines to prison sentences.

So though people may have been convinced that paying taxes is some sort sacrificial duty to a higher power, at bottom the threat of being kidnapped and imprisoned against one’s will still remains.

With the monopoly on violence comes the monopoly on crime. If any one, or any group, were to engage in any of the activities of government, including collecting taxes, they’d be imprisoned as criminals. Does that not say anything about the nature of their behavior?

tax evasion and tax fraud is still punishable by law and carries with it a range of life-altering penalties, from fines to prison sentences. — NOS4A2

No it isn't. As I've said to @Mikie above, I pay virtually no tax and it's all perfectly legal.

Tax evasion and tax fraud aren’t crimes in the UK?

You also disclosed that you profit from tax collection insofar as you draw from the government’s finances.

But, but but,... is not tax only possible if there is private property? And therefore a feature of non-communist regimes?

But, but but,... is not tax only possible if there is private property? And therefore a feature of non-communist regimes?

Taxes are necessary for any regime that cannot generate its own revenue. The exploitation of both the labor and finances and the property of its citizens is inherent in a communist regime, but not exclusive to it.

Tax evasion and tax fraud aren’t crimes in the UK? — NOS4A2

Fraud is, tax evasion isn't. As I said, I largely avoid paying tax.

You also disclosed that you profit from tax collection insofar as you draw from the government’s finances. — NOS4A2

I don't profit. One cannot simply take government money. But I can take government money to satisfy many of my own personal goals, so long as they're vaguely charitable. I've had thousands in government money to support efforts I think are worthwhile.

The arguments for taxation, in the US anyway, go back to the founding of the country. The articles of confederation were a disaster largely because they couldn’t levy taxes.

Taxes is a distraction from the real issue here— and the OP: systems of governing. Thus, about power.

I’m in favor of democracy. Our libertarian friends are not. They’re in favor of free market fantasies which, however noble the intention (although I don’t see that here really), only serve to shift blame from the plutocrats who own and run the government, to the government itself as an abstract entity.

This is exactly why these ideas have been disseminated for decades, making their way into the minds of said people. They’re very useful to the ruling class.

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. Not to drone on about abolishing the state, or whining about having to pay taxes.

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

That would just drive them out of the US, leaving people unemployed and prone to vote Nazi. You'd need a global government to accomplish what you have in mind.

If you don't like the country, leave it? American corporations have been doing that for a good while now. That's one reason the ones that are left have so much power.

American corporations have been doing that for a good while now. — frank

Which ones did you have in mind?

I hope no one minds that I'm getting in late. I apologize if I repeat something already said.

I don't care about communism and capitalism as much as 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. One can observe that an alliance of right-wing and left-wing radicals is formed when it comes to supporting Putin. In this respect, I am in favor of all moderates who support freedom and solidarity and an enemy of all radicals who strive for the oppression and enslavement of the weaker, be they individuals or states.

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

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.

Taxes are necessary for any regime that cannot generate its own revenue. — NOS4A2

A communist regime owns the means of production, and generates income thereby, It therefore does not need to tax, like the kings and barons of the good old days. Once everything has been privatised, then taxes are needed.

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

You are right. What I said is because 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. So at some point, I stopped taking sides with the left or the right. Since then, the dividing line for me runs between those who support and those who fight freedom. In the meantime, left and right have lost their importance, 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.

Report a person or business you think is not paying enough tax or is committing another type of fraud against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

This includes:

• running a business without telling HMRC
  
• not paying enough Income Tax or National Insurance
  
• making false claims for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme
  
• making false claims for Child Benefit or Tax Credits
  
• not being registered for VAT when they should be
  
• not charging VAT or other taxes on goods or services they sell
  
• not paying VAT or other taxes on goods or services they buy
  
• hiding money, shares or other assets in an offshore bank account
  
• other types of tax avoidance or tax evasion
  

https://www.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud

According to the government, your words alone might make any scrupulous tax man report you to the authorities, submitting you to investigation, which is itself a punishment. I think you’re right to avoid taxes as much as possible, and am confident it is all above board, but I’d be careful because the government is forever set on closing the tax gap.

A system whereby your neighbor can report you to the authorities for avoiding taxes is just another layer of threat among the rest of them. That you are arbitrarily subject to their whims is unavoidable. What you do today may be a crime tomorrow.

I favor the rule of the people; you favor the rule of a few. I favor democracy; you favor representative government. I favor sovereign persons; you favor the idea that people get to exercise their sovereignty at the ballot box one day every few years. Ironically, I am a democrat, you’re a republican.

Which ones did you have in mind? — Isaac

All the ones that moved their manufacturing overseas. Globalization, basically.

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

Really? Like whom?

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

Whatbdo you mean by 'civil' liberties here? Is, for example, freedom from deprivation a 'civil' liberty?

According to the government, your words alone might make any scrupulous tax man report you to the authorities, submitting you to investigation — NOS4A2

Have you read my post? I use government schemes to avoid paying tax.

A concerned, ethical individual (which is what we were talking about) need not pay any net tax (in my country at least)

All the ones that moved their manufacturing overseas. — frank

They haven't left America then. They're still subject to any laws America might implement. For example the modern slavery legislation in my country includes overseas labour.

:rofl: Thanks for the jokes, I needed that laugh.

I missed it. After having read it, it doesn’t appear that you’re avoiding or evading taxes at all. Availing oneself of the tax system is not the same as avoiding taxes in my eyes.