Ahh yes, taxes which have existed since the first and most basic state came into being – millennia before capitalism, even at its most primitive, was conceived of or practiced – are capitalist.
It’s kind of incredible how teenagers on the internet use the word “capitalism” the same way boomers on facebook use “communism.”
My bad, just meant to argue that taxes weren’t explicitly communist. I don’t have any strong feelings for or agains t communism yet, maybe I’ll look into it later. Just hate to see people use thr name of an economic system as a debate ender, although I suppose I did the same. Guess it’s just the debater in me wishing we could have actual structural arguments on thr internet instead of throwing slang words around.
Oh yes, an ideology defined by private ownership and small government intervention is also somehow responsible for the basis of government intervention - taxes.
They don’t actually believe in small government intervention at all - they want the goverment to enforce private property rights and then just tax a little back, below the profits from owning that property.
The big lie is that private property is natural, and thus its enforcement is small.
A government which only enforces private property rights is still significantly smaller than most alternatives.
Enforcement of private property rights is a part of virtually all governments, and then you pile all other stuff on top of that hence making the government bigger.
And ofc the taxes will be below the profits, no sane person would make any investments in anything if it was above the profits.
Edit: and to add, many hardcore capitalists, like minarchists, libertarians, or anarcho capitalists, propose that you don’t even need a government to enforce private property rights. They’d rather solve that issue privately.
But I’m comparing against socialism, not against most capitalist countries. We don’t need to encourage investment where the factors of production are owned by the workers themselves.
The ancaps illustrate my point - it’s absolute monarchy that they falsely claim is anarchy.
I don’t think I follow your reasoning tbh. What exactly are you comparing? You said that capitalists favour intervening governments, which is simply not true. Not in any general sense anyway.
Anarcho capitalism is probably as far into anarchy you can go. They want to completely abolish the state and enforce property rights privately.
Or are you saying that such a society will fall into some kind of feudalism? At the core of anarcho capitalism is the NAP which is not really compatible with feudalism. In feudalism you have a hierarchy not based on voluntarism, and that would therefore not be anarcho capitalist.
Do you imply that we need a strong state with a monopoly on violence to keep us in check, otherwise we would descend into chaos? Thats a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of mankind.
I’m comparing existing states to socialism - that’s shared ownership of the factors of production, not simply when the government does things.
Private property fails the NAP because it’s a person taking away natural resources from everyone else, without their consent, and reimbursing them for less than its value.
Anarcho-capitalism is fuedalism, not just something that will become feudalism in the future. The king is a “property owner enforcing his rights privately” with a lot of tenants. FYI other anarchists generally don’t consider ancaps to even be anarchist at all for this reason.
I agree that a monopoly on force is a bad idea. We’ve tried “vanguard states” already and they don’t actually wither away at all. I’d prefer to see housing cooperatives and (as yet nonexistent) p2p prediction markets fill the power vacuum left by land lords. I also generally agree with ancaps that neighborhoods ought to be protected by armed people who live there; my main disagreement is who rightfully owns that neighborhood in the first place.
I agree with the idea, but where is the humor in this?
That’s X sign on Twitter building in the end of tax
Ah that explains everything. Thank you.
The communism.
Taxes are capitalist
Ahh yes, taxes which have existed since the first and most basic state came into being – millennia before capitalism, even at its most primitive, was conceived of or practiced – are capitalist.
It’s kind of incredible how teenagers on the internet use the word “capitalism” the same way boomers on facebook use “communism.”
My bad, just meant to argue that taxes weren’t explicitly communist. I don’t have any strong feelings for or agains t communism yet, maybe I’ll look into it later. Just hate to see people use thr name of an economic system as a debate ender, although I suppose I did the same. Guess it’s just the debater in me wishing we could have actual structural arguments on thr internet instead of throwing slang words around.
Socialism is the thing you’re looking for. And in my opinion, market socialism.
deleted by creator
Oh yes, an ideology defined by private ownership and small government intervention is also somehow responsible for the basis of government intervention - taxes.
They don’t actually believe in small government intervention at all - they want the goverment to enforce private property rights and then just tax a little back, below the profits from owning that property.
The big lie is that private property is natural, and thus its enforcement is small.
(Edit: clarity)
A government which only enforces private property rights is still significantly smaller than most alternatives.
Enforcement of private property rights is a part of virtually all governments, and then you pile all other stuff on top of that hence making the government bigger.
And ofc the taxes will be below the profits, no sane person would make any investments in anything if it was above the profits.
Edit: and to add, many hardcore capitalists, like minarchists, libertarians, or anarcho capitalists, propose that you don’t even need a government to enforce private property rights. They’d rather solve that issue privately.
But I’m comparing against socialism, not against most capitalist countries. We don’t need to encourage investment where the factors of production are owned by the workers themselves.
The ancaps illustrate my point - it’s absolute monarchy that they falsely claim is anarchy.
I don’t think I follow your reasoning tbh. What exactly are you comparing? You said that capitalists favour intervening governments, which is simply not true. Not in any general sense anyway.
Anarcho capitalism is probably as far into anarchy you can go. They want to completely abolish the state and enforce property rights privately.
Or are you saying that such a society will fall into some kind of feudalism? At the core of anarcho capitalism is the NAP which is not really compatible with feudalism. In feudalism you have a hierarchy not based on voluntarism, and that would therefore not be anarcho capitalist.
Do you imply that we need a strong state with a monopoly on violence to keep us in check, otherwise we would descend into chaos? Thats a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of mankind.
I’m comparing existing states to socialism - that’s shared ownership of the factors of production, not simply when the government does things.
Private property fails the NAP because it’s a person taking away natural resources from everyone else, without their consent, and reimbursing them for less than its value.
Anarcho-capitalism is fuedalism, not just something that will become feudalism in the future. The king is a “property owner enforcing his rights privately” with a lot of tenants. FYI other anarchists generally don’t consider ancaps to even be anarchist at all for this reason.
I agree that a monopoly on force is a bad idea. We’ve tried “vanguard states” already and they don’t actually wither away at all. I’d prefer to see housing cooperatives and (as yet nonexistent) p2p prediction markets fill the power vacuum left by land lords. I also generally agree with ancaps that neighborhoods ought to be protected by armed people who live there; my main disagreement is who rightfully owns that neighborhood in the first place.