Without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ultimablah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the sustainability of a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power, specifically in the context of anarchy. Participants examine the implications of such a system on happiness, economics, and societal stability, raising questions about governance, power dynamics, and historical examples.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a society without centralized authority would lead to an unstable power vacuum, resulting in despotism by those with the most weapons.
  • Others reference historical examples, such as the Spanish Civil War and the situation in Somalia, to illustrate potential failures of anarchic systems.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of anarchy, with some emphasizing that it implies a lack of government and law, while others suggest it is a more complex political theory.
  • Some participants propose that anarchy presumes people are generally good and capable, but question the validity of this assumption, noting that a minority of bad actors could disrupt society.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of large-scale economics without central authority, suggesting that commerce would be unstable and prone to exploitation.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of anarchism as a reaction to industrialization, contrasting it with communism's acceptance of industrial progress.
  • Some express skepticism about the faith-based arguments of anarchists, questioning the reliance on voluntary cooperation for societal functions like transportation and public health.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the viability and implications of an anarchic society remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the lack of a coherent definition of anarchy and the dependence on various interpretations, which complicates the discussion. There are also references to historical failures and assumptions about human nature that remain unexamined.

  • #91


Al68 said:
I think freedom should ultimately be the goal, and free people will engage in capitalism. The only way to stop them is to oppress them.

So you would support anarcho-capitalism? How would they get food in a capitalist system without engaging in it? I agree that freedom is important but there has to be a balance between freedom and the general welfare of the public. That's why we have the democratic feedback system. Some freedoms are more important than others.

Al68 said:
People talk about capitalism like it's an economic system in the same way socialism and communism are economic systems. It would be more accurate to say that (free market) capitalism is the result of a lack of an economic system.

Not the perfect source, but:

Wikipedia said:
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


misgfool said:
So you would support anarcho-capitalism? How would they get food in a capitalist system without engaging in it?
They could engage in voluntary socialism if they choose. Like the Amish in US.

Not the perfect source, but:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Yeah, I know. That's what makes it difficult to discuss the issue. But I'm not in favor of gov't choosing capitalism over socialism. I'm in favor of gov't not making the choice at all.

It's hard for me to think of the gov't just leaving people alone as a "system". And no, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I believe it's a legitimate role of gov't to protect liberty, law and order, outlaw theft, murder, fraud, assault, etc.

What do we call a situation in which the gov't doesn't try to assume "ownership" of each individual's labor at all, and each person owns their own labor, and can use it, sell it, trade it as they see fit?

Maybe capitalism is the wrong word to use, but it's the word others (perhaps incorrectly?) use to describe a lack of economic oppression.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K