this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
23 points (63.2% liked)
conservative
947 readers
4 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you joking? Did you even read the article?
It talks about child marriage, child labour and forced birth. None of these problems in particular require money, just laws to be passed. The solution to two of these issues is to just ban them. The solution for the third is just to unban something.
No, 'Think of the children' is a meme :p
Laws are written by government lawyers. Laws are revoked and rescinded by government workers. These laws still exist. Unpopular laws still exist... In many States a law can be petitioned into existence-- to get broken and watered down in beaureocratic double-speak. Worse, laws dont just go away, they're written over. Wherein §512.765 still reffrences the 'removed' §218.231(A)(2) verbiage. Its a clusterfuck.
Do you really think more taxes/government will end the ageless problem of shit parenting and poor parents?
How about... Not electing government officials that are OK with child marriage?
For it! No force or taxes required
You would need police to force people into jail for marrying children or officiating said marriages, and taxes to fund said police
If you believe only the State has a right to force... ;]
In our current system, yes, only the state (and capital) have the right to force
Well... Thats lame :] But does that make it good? Do you really trust law enforcement thaaat much? ACAB? You're not a bootlicker, are you?!
/s But you see what Im doing.
I never said it did.
Of course not. I'm not advocating this, I'm just describing it.
....sigh.
No, I really don't.
What you're doing is downplaying the importance of laws in general. You have to tell yourself that laws against child marriage wouldn't really matter, in case you ever end up voting for someone that defends child marriage. You conveniently ignore all the other laws that are enforced reasonably and allow society as we know it to function.
Cops are dicks, but as the film Team America World Police said, "Sometimes dicks fuck assholes."
The issue here is that laws are protecting child marriages ;] Yay, laws! I know what you mean though. I believe some laws are legitimate. However I know that we are beholden to more laws than we know. That as every action becomes more and more regulated it becomes more easy to commit 'crime.' And that 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.' Seems legit :p
I dont know what you mean to suggest by 'in case I end up voting for someone that defends child marriage.'
I think you meant to *reply to a comment that asked for higher taxes or more government power, because that wasn't what mine said.
Also, i am quite happy letting the government have the "power" to stop child labour and child marriage. If that's an overstep in your book, then i don't like your book. What seems an overstep in government power to me is regulating what people can do with their own bodies. Why isn't that offensive to you?
The implication of all left/right ultimately boils down to taxes/force. I dont like force or taxes. This extends to bodily rights. However if you mean abortions issues, there is a true coin-flip on who's body gets priority. (The solution is to not regulate it so that people that want it can do it and people who dont dont have to fund it. No force, no taxes. Consistency).
The mother's body. It should take priority every single time.
You see how its a conundrum, right? That two sides of a dichotomy are definitionally extreme...
That's not even close to being correct. The left/right spectrum is basically anti/pro capitalism and hierarchy
But I agree with how your comment ended anyway. But "no taxes" seems untenable, unless you're also arguing for abolition of the state... in which case I'm curious where you fall on that
Eh, I see how you got there but I dunno about that. In my terms, a Communist (far left) State redistributes all wealth (~100% tax) and in a Minarchist system (far right) there is virtually no tax because there is virtually no State to fund. Thus no reason to employ force to gain said funding. The game theory is clear either way; A small State can only inflict small tyranny. A (mid to) large State typically has a war-machine.
I am more Right-skewed than typical Conservatives. I identify as Libertarian, but the LP itself is/was a mess. Mises Caucus seems legit tho. I believe that the State has limited rightful duties. As enumerated in the Constitution, the feds only need power to 1)Make and maintain currency shit (shit job), 2) Enforce or sovereignty (shit job), and 3) Enforce and promote popular law (shit job). But they want to do everything else...
Do you think your taxes are well spent? I know you dont, lmfao. If they reallocate spending then maybe I'd be cool with (some) taxes. Here and now, no. Im being misrepresented and it's tantamount to theft. The problem isnt lack of funding, its more a lack of budgeting and prioritizing the wrong stuff. Making another committee or council only worsens the issue. They must be starved.
Dude, I'm sorry, but this just demonstrates a bizarre misunderstanding of the left and right spectrum, and a complete misunderstanding of communism.
The left-right dichotomy most certainly represents opposition or favour toward liberal capitalist democratic states. Here's a rough outline.
Where on Earth did you hear that communists want to redistribute all wealth through a 100% tax? Seriously, wtf is that all about?
Communists want workers to control their work and work their own way without a boss taking all the profit.
No, we just won't get anywhere until we get past the foundations.
I don't believe in horseshoe theory and it still makes sense. Why shouldn't this make sense?
This sounds like gibberish.
Yes, this is true. Capitalism, and liberalism (later neo-liberalism) inevitably leads to fascism.
Because everyone owns these things communally. There is no private property, and thus no need for money. There is also no state, so no need for a separated governmental apparatus. The people rule themselves on equal footing, with no class distinctions. And all is made and shared on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".
You need to move past the cold war propaganda that told you communism means big government. Communism means no government.
Nah, Im good. I dont talk to people who show zero candor. Ive said a lot, and if you cant follow then-- tsk!
Answer at least the police use of force issue and if its good Ill probably reply. "Is it good that the State has a monopoly on force?"
Zero candor? Lmao I've told you what I thought, haven't I? I've made my points. You don't understand the left right distinction. That's what we're talking about. Your unhinged theories with zero relevance to reality don't really mean much since they rest on faulty assumptions.
Why are you asking such obvious questions? No, of course it isn't fucking good. I'm a communist, is this not obvious by now?
It was always obvious, lol. Just trying to get you out the closet, sheesh. Lemmy is hilariously more Commie than Reddit, somehow. You're pretending to be a radical enlightened centrist, who dont really actually exist. Stop it :p
I dont think you've made points, tbh. You showed me a .png, deflected moral questions, and deferred to current state power whenever possible. But we're getting a lil candor now ;]
If right wing means 'ultra capitalistic', and capitalists dont like paying taxes, would it not be fair to assume that right-systems favor low taxes... Can you fund an excessive, wasteful, state on low taxes? Can you fund sweeping tyranny? This is just syllogistic reasoning. Its not some slippery academic nonsense. Im not appealed by authority.
You can say a Commie totally-not-a-state doesnt use money, man. But it will still exist in a world that does. Scarcity will always exist. And thus markets/economies will always exist. Even if they're black (aka the real free market, lol).
What are you talking about? I haven't pretended anything, certainly not that.
I've made two, which I've continued to elaborate on:
Hey! I spent time making that! It roughly describes the left right spectrum. You barely even commented on it.
I've answered your questions dude... Wtf are you talking about?
Um, wtf are you talking about? I keep criticisng state power.... Are you trolling me?
Yes, and they do. On the rich, anyway.
I'm not the one saying they actually want low taxes. They just want low taxes for the rich, by using either flat tax or very minor progressive taxing.
Why say "totally-not-a-state"? Now you're the one deferring to state power by assuming it's necessary. And why should it use money if all goods are freely available?
A world that does what? Use money? Well, if we're for some reason assuming this end-stage communism has been reached without a global revolution, then methods can be set up for external trade, assuming this hypothetical communist society hasn't been embargoed by the world for daring to try communism, like has happened to Cuba.
Or invaded, like Vietnam, Argentina, Chile, etc...
Who ever said it didn't? But we already possess the capability to feed the world and still have some left over. The issue isn't scarcity, it's economics.
Economies maybe, but markets aren't inevitable. They haven't always existed.
If you're gonna appeal to the black market as some sort of ideal free market for the world market to aspire to, then I worry that I've been taking you far too seriously.
Im actually pleased if you did produce the .png yourself :] Barely commented on it? Ive flipped it over because it DOES describe taxation if you assume (correctly) that UltraCapitalists dont like paying taxes and dont want their companies to go public-sector. Im merely reframing your view by making inferences. Simple assumptions.
You DID deflect questions. Theres some you missed still, but its cool. We've had a lot to say. I dont think your a robot (anymore) :] Im on mobile, so forgive me if I dont hit all your comments, too. Also we really should condense to one reply thread. Been here before, makes things easier. Im gon try to wait until you reply to my last to make it happen.
I am a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I like the idea of a State. They just also happen to suck in practice. Im giving you hell about Communism but I have criticisms of 'Neo-Libralism' and cuckservatives. For instance, if our nation has open borders then how do I still have property rights if Uncle Sam cannot establish their own rights to property! How can I enjoy my (positive) liberty when the dollar is failing to poor economic planning?! And so on. Technically this will make me a statist, sure. But given the need to redistribute, AnComns are just a larp. AnCaps almost make sense, but its squirrely.
I agree foreign intervention is fucked up and beyond the scope of what our nation was intended to achieve. Retaliation? Maybe, but only if Congress approves and the budget isnt skyhigh. However I go even farther. US founders specifically warned of 'estranged and entangling foreign relations.' This is describing UN/NATO and so on. Im against those sorts of councils.
I would like to hear YOU (not wikipedia) explain the difference between markets and economies. I suspect all you'll come up with is scale...
We have the ability to feed the world on paper. Heres how you can tell its BS though... We havent worked out water yet. Water is virtually imparishable, comes in 1 flavor, is needed everyday, cannot be deformed, can be transported by static pipes... But its not done. Imagine how much harder of a problem food is than water. Its incalcuably more difficult.
Awful things happen in the black market. Human trafficking and hitmen and so on. However it is infact a free market. Most critiques of capitalism come post-robber barron. When the FED was formed. Then blew our load fighting for Europe whoch tanked our finances. So we switched to fiat to fund endless wars and dick with other free peoples. And everyone lives in debt to the banks named after the same robber barrons now. Charming. I would suggest you and I probably never saw a free market.
For instance: Opening a gas station. Gas prices are set by OPEC. US agencies tell you the tax rates, they tell you all the expensive standards they want you to achieve. Then across the street another gas staion opens up. If you charge way more than him, its 'price gouging.' Way less, 'predatory prices.' The same?! 'Price collusion.' Gas stations net profit in selling chips than gas. "Free market."
Most ironically, the practice of making gouging/collusion/predatory tactics unlawful is to prevent monopoly. Meanwhile, the oligarchs openly lobby the government.
Not just scale, but category. Economy describes the entire flow of goods around a given area. Market is a specific way to distribute goods, that is predicated on competition between sellers to sell goods to consumers. Economies don't necessarily have to be market economies.
Because of capitalism. The infrastructure is already there to freely give water to entire nations. But certain people would lose out on money if it were nationalised.... and those people have lots of money to lobby with.
LOL no. Socialism has been a movement since capitalism began, dude.
Seems pretty free right now. Ask Jeff Bezes and Elon Musk. They're living pretty free.
I'm not sure why you're not a socialist if you see the problems inherent in capitalism. The core difference between the two is that capitalism is set up to enrich owners of a business, and socialism is set up to enrich the workers. I'm honestly asking, why do you object to that?
Pffffffffft! You point to Bezos and Musk as 'free market' guys yet Bezos in prticular made his monopoly through non-compete practices and Musk through govt subsidy. Bro, plz. These are the oligarchs. Dont put them anywhere near a gas station worker! Further, these are people, not markets. I dont... I just dont, lmfao.
Monopoly is not a problem with capitalism, it is a problem with government. Of coure a business seeks to grow/profit. But govt was supposed to protect consumers from monopoly. They didn't. Clearly. Do I blame Bezos/Musk (whom I give $0) or the government that was supposed to protect me (whom I give a significant percentage of net-wealth). Arguably, we would not have our current oligarchs without the collusion between State and corporation... Whats the word for that again?
Socialism has existed since capitalism began? So are you calling Communism Socialism now? Do you agree with V. Lenin when he said 'The goal of Socialism is Communism.'? The slope is slippery, lmao.
Its funny, man. You'll play appologist for the USSR (re: Holodimur) but then go to say no, it wasnt real Communism. This strikes me as an inconsistency. Its easy to find flaws in things that actually exist ;]
The infrastructure for water kind of exists in the West. But its also pretty piss-poor. I live near Detroit/Flint. It took ~9yrs to fix the shitty infrastructure. This how I know you're an idealist-- You're diminishing the seriousness of the differences in the problems. Water is baby-mode compared to food.
Consider my experience of public services. Roads: Detroit. Schools: Detroit. Living standards: Detroit. Police response: Detroit. Fire response: Detroit.... The public sector is a joke.
Go back to the very beginning where I mention Thomas Sowell. You have the anoited vision, you think that impossible things can be achieved with enough money (which is tantamount to force). I don't, I think some problems are legitimately impossible by their nature. If you shrug off food shortages and starvation as a 'capitalits' problem then I know you guys are damned, lol. It IS a hard problem. Try and tell me that it's not.
You can assure me that I wont get the bullet, but what if Im only gulag'd? :p What if you're just some prole and have no say?! People like me are a problem for you guys. Once you get enough FORCE you wont be talking with me... This talking/pseudo-intellectual phase is merely the boot getting put on the foot. I know, Ill be re-educated and made to say I love the State. Hell, maybe you'll get an extra [widget] if you turn me in ;]
Im going to go to work, but I would like to make a little consensus between us :] "Fuck this bullshit neo-liberalism." Agreed?
Yep, that's the free market in action. What do you think free market capitalism is all about? It means less regulation, more freedom for capitalists to do what they want. And neoliberalism has ensured that capital is completely protected by the state.
Lmao you literally described the problem of capitalism. "Of course they want to grow!" Yeah - because capitalism. Capitalism requires businesses to seek growth, because otherwise they'd fail. That literally isn't a problem outside of capitalism.
Neoliberalism? Corruption? Capitalism?
...No? Why would one entail the other?
Yes, that is the goal of socialism. And what slope do you mean?
...excuse me? Here are my exact words:
That is not USSR apologia. That is condemning them for failing to do better.
But it's not communism. It has a state. Like I said. It was a Marxist-Leninist socialist state. Where's the inconsistency?
So it needs to be improved.
So they need to fucking do better.
No, I'm really not. I'm not calling any of this easy.
Whatever you say.
Because neoliberal capitalism insists that the state must stay out of everything, and any service it provides must be put to the market to compete and neutered, because the intention is to remove all public services and leave them to the whims of the market. Neoliberals believe every facet of life must be a competition, and all aid is wasted tax dollars. And when they're in power, they work hard to make sure this is true and that the public sees it as an inevitable failure of services that inherently can't work, rather than intentional sabotage of critical infrastructure to enrich their cronies.
This is why the neoliberalism is cancer to society. And capitalism inherently leads to this - capitalism cannot exist without a state to protect its private property. And this relationship develops parasitically until the state is merely an organ for capital to oppress the people.
That's an incredibly dishonest representation of socialist theory. I really don't understand how you can think that's what I've said.
Why? You really haven't explained your view on this. You've just said, basically, "it hasn't been done therefore it can't."
Who the fuck is saying that? It's a multifaceted, complex problem, but capitalism is at the core of it. A few questions:
What is the actual reason homeless people exist in the richest nations on Earth?
What is the actual reason millions struggle to feed themselves in said nations?
What is the actual reason millions have to work for bullshit pay on behalf of the richest corporations in the world?
Why do you seem to expect it would be hard for me to say, "this is a difficult problem"? What gave you the impression I thought this could be done easily?
You're just not taking this seriously. Why am I?
The vast majority of us are already proles. It is is who will be leading the revolution. I think you have a distorted view of what communism and socialism are. It is fundamentally democratic, inherently so, led by the people on the ground who are themselves motivated to improve their own conditions for the good of their society.
Stop fantasising that you're some outlaw.
Why do you say this? Like I've said, communism is led by the people. Anything that is led by authoritarian force has no business calling itself communist. Why can't you get past this? Why won't you learn? I'm really trying here to help you understand. You have to work with me. Just understand I'm not lying to you. Why is that so hard? You're fundamentally resisting the information I'm giving you.
Why call it pseudo-intellectual? Why call it a phase? Why do you think there is some secret master plan for domination?
Where do you see this in socialist theory? Which socialist writer promoted anything like this?
Please answer.
FFS man. Listen. Communism is stateless. Why won't you listen?
Why do you say you'll be re-educated? What state will you be made to love?
Please answer.
You're just not listening!!! This is hopeless.
I don't think there's anything else we'll agree on. But at least consider what I'm saying isn't a cover for some master plan for world domination. I don't want power. Socialists don't want power vested in any individual or minority of elites. Socialists want workers to have control of their own lives, to be able to choose their work of their own free will, to better society because they truly want to.
Force is how we labour now. These fears of yours are our current reality. You cannot truly decide how you work or how you live your life. You have options to choose between, but all of these options have been provided for you by the symbiosis of State and capital, and all of these options enrich them at your expense. The only option that doesn't exploit you is not working, and unemployment is deliberately as unappealing and tenuous as possible. Poverty and homelessness are tools of coercion employed by capital to keep you as afraid of unemployment as possible.
Being forced to love the State? What is the Pledge of Allegiance? What are mandatory holidays commemorating servants of State? What is the pomp and pageantry associated with election campaigns?
Re-education? What is prison, to which you can be sent for offences as minor as possessing substances for personal use, or peacefully expressing your distaste for the State in public?
Yes. Fuck neo-liberalism. Fuck the capitalism that birthed it. Fuck the State.
All power to all the people. That's what I want. That's what socialists want. Please understand this.
I accidentally deleted my own comment :,]
Communism and fascism look almost indistinguishable when compared to minarchism. The ONLY way for that to be true is to ascribe to 'horseshoe theory.' I don't. I think the game theory IS the Occam's Razor: A small govt can only inflict small tyranny, and reciprocally.
Benito said that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." I believe this describes our so-called Neo-Libralism strikingly well... The US government is a rouge agent. They spy on us, they fight unconstitutional wars, they allow monopoly, they engage in obvious nepotism. The corruption is so deep its almost impossible to even begin. And its all funded by average joes tryna live a little life for themselves.
If I make [labor], how does it become the peoples' [labor]? It gets redistributed. If you dont earn fiat but get to keep your [widget] and government redistributes your [widget] then you have ostensibly been taxed at n%. Where you are one person and the people are many, therefore n% is presumably quite high.
In literally no universe is this true. Fascism has an all-encompassing state with all power vested in an individual; communism has no state and all power distributed among all the people
Like I said, we can get nowhere before you understand these basic things
You say Im propagandized :33 Both require Government+Corporate collusion. Oh, excuse me, in the new-speak, Community+MeansofProduction.
Show me a stateless Communism. However, we really should condense replies so we dont get out of whack.
This is pure fantasy. If there's any ideology more opposed to corporate power, it's communism. Do you even know what communism is? Please, give me a real answer.
"New-speak"? Workers seizing the means of production is literally in the Communist Manifesto. This isn't some hiding of a real agenda or a new addition. Why are you so ignorant to the theory of the ideology you spend so much effort "critiquing"?
Please, tell me what is so absurd to you about the idea of workers democratically managing an organisation together. Tell me what is so absurd about the people democratically managing production as a whole together. Why does this sound so oppressive to you? Why does this speak to you of state power, or of corporations?
The state spends so much effort suppressing people when they try to organise. The state hates this. This is a threat to the state. The same is true of corporate power. When workers unionise, corporations panic and beg the state to intervene. The state has intervened and sent in armed police to gun down union organisers, and that's ignoring the times corporations have sent private goon squads to put down native workers in foreign countries.
State and corporate power are against communism. Why do you think the US has invaded so many countries that have attempted it, to put it down and halt it in its tracks?
I'm sorry, but for the reasons stated above it's pretty impossible to do that. But it has existed in pockets, such as revolutionary Catalonia.
Technically communism should be a moneyless, stateless society. No government to give taxes to. No corporations to take your money. No money to take. No one to force things. It's all for the people by the people. The idea that you're pointing to communism as force in order to defend your decision to vote republican on an article about pedophelia is pretty telling. This is why some people assume libertarians want to fuck kids.
Same questions as to the other commenter:
If my [labor] is the peoples' labor, what recorsue do the people have if I want to horde? Force. What if Im a [widget] maker and the people want [widget]... What happens if Im done from making [widget] and the people still need [widget]? The dynamic of owing the ~~State~~ community for your ~~forced~~ labor is pretty... Statist sounding to me.
We can talk about theory until we all feel gooey, but it just doesnt seem to go that way. I know, I know. The meme, it's never been tried, lol.
People doing bad things IS a facet to freedom. People do bad stuff. Do you think selfish animal nature can be regulated away with enough tax? Maybe, but gosh you'll need a big ~~community~~ State.
There are just so many mistaken assumptions to correct before I can even touch this question. Let me make an analogy:
To answer this question, I have to take for granted driving licenses can spontaneously change which country they are from. This is absurd, and I hope you can agree that I don't need to answer what would happen in that case.
Similarly, it is absurd for you to want to hoard in a communist society. With free access to social goods, they will always be there when you want them. What is the point in hoarding?
That's not how it works.
Okay, so what happens when I dont work but want the peoples' stuff? Just as you hid your true colors, you are obfuscating all the forseeable places where force WILL be applied. It will be applied somewhere. Maybe it'll just be me. Should dissidents like me get the bullet? Why not?!
There is a lot of hand-waving here. Like how great things can be. And all I see is Holodimur and One-child policies. Large spying governments with huge militaries taking land from farmers, always followed by famine. But I know, its all really chill on paper. Slick academics make it sound sexy, sure. And Im sure this time we'll find those chill sociopaths to put at the reigns of power, lol.
You can try to explain it to me, I guess, but this sounds like the most statist worldview imaginable. You're using an analogy about drivers licenses to a libertarian. Fuck a drivers license. Its just a regulatory device to attach fines to a person. The identification card is not for you, its for them!
You only work if you want to. No one is going to force you. It is natural for people to want to work because we get bored if we don't. Communists believe in leaving it up to you when you want to work, and what you want to do, and how and where and why. And you can go and take what you need from the freely available goods when you need it.
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
- Karl Marx
I never did that.
Such as where?
Why?
Because there is no reason to shoot you just because you don't enjoy... checks notes being allowed to work or not work when you feel like it.
Such as when?
How is this a hand wave? I have explained above, and you haven't even responded. This reply here doesn't even touch any points I've made. You're just repeating yourself.
So, there are a few points to make here. This video goes into a whole lot of detail and is thoroughly sourced and reasoned in a very balanced manner. The TL;DW is:
The soviet famine was largely the result of natural factors.
It was then worsened considerably by a very slow and negligent response from Stalin.
It affected more than just Ukraine. Kazakhstan and even Russia itself also suffered.
Stalin did send help - but not enough, and it was sent secretly so as not to let the outside world discover the famine.
In summation, it was far from deliberate, but Stalin's response was cold and insufficient, and cared more about appearances.
All in all - not very damn communist. Because, surely you know, The USSR was not communist? The first clue is it has a damn state. That's a big clue. I'm generally not a big fan of the USSR and the big fuckin state is one of the reasons.
That's China right? Yeah also another big fuckin state that I'm not a big fan of. Here's a fellow communist also hatin' on China.
Yep, things I'm also not a fan of.
Lol wut? Taking land from farmers? Yeah, with communists it's generally the opposite. If farms are being taken over, it's from fat cats hoarding land for private use, to be taken into public hands for the use of all.
Yeah, slick academics also make rocket science sound sexy. And then you follow the theories and oh my goodness, you've made a fuckin rocket. But if somewhere along the way, you decide to swap out aluminium for styrofoam, you've made an expensive waste of fuckin time. So the think is - if you're trying to make communism and you make a big fuckin state, you've taken a wrong fuckin turn or you were fuckin lying!
WHAT FUCKING REIGNS OF POWER? IT'S COMMUNISM! IF THERE ARE REIGNS OF POWER YOU BUILT IT WRONG!
HOW? A stateless society sounds statist? Are you high? Because I am, and it still sounds out there to me.
Did you... miss the point? It's a prop. Jesus fucking Christ. Oh my God. You're so hung up on such a small detail that the wider point was completely missed. Let me try again.
In order to answer this question, I have to take for granted that not only can cakes speak, but they also understand what dates are, and might proposition me.
Yes. So fucking what. It doesn't fucking matter in the context of the analogy. Now think about the damn point it's making and respond to it you fucking loon.
Well if we want to take the idea of forcing to really anything, then you still want a government, which means rules, which means you are also in favor of forcing. You just want a government run by people volunteer their free time.
And if you want to learn some of the more intricate workings of communism, you can do research. But yes, everyone who can work still does work. Just as your system forces you to work or starve and live on the street.
Turns out every side has somethings that get forced and other things that don't, because the world isn't exactly a binary as you suggest. Even the concept of left and right has been broken down more into a square called the political compass. And some even argue you could add another axis for social issues. But at the end of the day, communism would allow freedoms in certain areas, such as it being a stateless society, while yours would mean you get to keep the money and not pay taxes.
And then you show at the end you aren't even here for a conversation. I never said I was a communist, and I mentioned how communism doesn't have taxes, and yet you still use it as a come back.
Maybe learn something about these theories before you spout off about them.
Im with you 100% that the existence of a State implies force. I consider myself a Libertarian, as I believe that you can have a good State. But a good State will invariably be a small state. A small state will obviously have less time/resources to do bad stuff. As outlined in the US constitution there are only 3 duties for the federal govt. Yet we find ouselves in a position where half the nation is terrified about what geriatric sits behind what desk. This a symptom of too much top-down unilateral power.
Its also true that I can starve if I do not earn my way. However, employment is voluntary. And I will not be exiled if I want to take time off. Yet its not quite the famines seen by the Ukranians or Mao's China. Hell, even Deng (Mao's successor) used Capitalism to turn China into a powerhouse.
Yes, you can choose to starve.