I am very much in favor of using violence to take resources from people that don’t give back to the community they rely on. It’s a good thing to take money from the rich and greedy using violence. There is no imaginable society where people should be permitted to not contribute when they are capable of contributing.
If people are permitted to not contribute excess power, it places more of the burden on everyone else to make up for it. On top of that, as the tax dodger accumulates too much control over resources(wealth), they can use those resources to hire people that then impose violence on the community when they try to take the resources back.
If anything, an anarchist society should be more vigilant of resource accumulation, forcing each other to contribute through violence and ensuring that large power imbalances don’t emerge. There would be no state to handle redistribution, so it’d be the responsibility of every individual to make sure everyone has enough. There’d be no justification for anyone to have too much exclusive control over important resources, nor would there be a justification to not give excess resources to ensure everyone has the essentials.
In a society that prohibits excessive wealth imbalance or centralization of control, there’d be power inequality, but there’d also be a well established ceiling and floor to the inequality. That will always require some form of progressive “taxation” or system of redistribution. There’d also need to be taxation on almost all worker productivity to help develop public goods that everyone will benefit from. Everyone would need to chip in what they can if they need a new communal well, or if they need to maintain the roads, or need to put someone’s home out if it caught fire. People would need to contribute even if they don’t benefit from the particular public service, as they might benefit from another one more than others.
A well functioning society must require people to contribute what they can to maintain & improve the community, must take from those that don’t contribute by force, must tax people even if they don’t consent. This isn’t optional for any system, state or no state. If it fails, exploitation, abuse, and suffering will destabilize the system until it falls apart from under its own weight. A society that taxes properly can minimize violence, maximize efficiency, and be far safer for everyone without exception. Even those on top are constantly in danger of being deposed by someone who wants their position, as well as the people they exploit.
Tldr: Yes, we must use violence to force contribution. Not doing so only causes more violence. Violence is unavoidable, and can only be minimized by ensuring no one gets too powerful to oppress.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Can you name a functional civilization that had no taxation?
aidan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Can you name a functional civilization without oppressing some minority populations? Does that mean oppressing minority populations is good or necessary?
TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Got it, we won’t do civilization anymore.
PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
RETURN TO MONKE! YAY!
blusterydayve26@midwest.social 6 months ago
Where change is going, there won’t be civilization.
aidan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s not what I said
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yes. Iceland.
aidan@lemmy.world 6 months ago
After they enriched themselves by pillaging the work of others. Also let’s not forget the widespread (almost 100%) abortion of those diagnosed with down syndrome pre-birth. So when you prevent the disadvantaged from even being born its pretty easy to not oppress them. Furthermore, Iceland like the rest of Europe, does have a bit of bullying of Polish(and other) migrants- but I have no clue how wide spread it is.
qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
FOSS has no taxes, people support the projects they like on their own volition, this ensures that the money goes to where it’s supposed to instead of bombing foreign countries or oppressing local communities. I see no reason why this system couldn’t scale.
I never said that there should be no taxes, but I’m also not going to pretend that there isn’t a degree of duress, coercion, extoextortion, non-consent which I consider fundamentally evil, perhaps a necessary one but evil nonetheless and I think it should be minimised.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
FOSS is not a civilization. How did you read ‘civilization’ and get ‘software’ out of it? Do you think I was talking about the game?
qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
I thought that was a rhetorical question so I answered to what I thought was the spirit of it: An example of a functional system voluntarily supported by the community.
To answare your unrhetorical question: No. I can’t think of a tax free civilization, but if I asked you 150 years ago to give me an example of a functional civilization where men and women had equal rights and people weren’t discriminated against based on their race or sexual orientation or of functional space faring civilization you probably couldn’t give me an example either. Just because something hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it can’t or that we shouldn’t try to make it.
Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Can you eat it?