I'm running into problems in some of the right-wing groups I'm in just trying to find out exactly how communist each person is within the group. The problem is that right-wing people tend to outright reject communism at face-value but then right-wing people start advocating for resource redistribution policies that are simply "communist-light".
What is everyone's idea of some sort of "minimum" access to resources everyone should have?
If I owned all the resources in society. All the land. All the equipment. Everything. You would not be able to get any food without trespassing on my land which is a violation of my private property. If you followed private property laws then you would get 0 resources. I could pay you some of those resources in exchange for some sort of "labor". Perhaps, I find your daughter cute so I pay her resources in exchange for sex but perhaps I don't like you at all so I decide to pay you 0 resources. Without any resources, you will die. Is this right? Is it right that I can use the fact I own all the resources to "force" others into doing what I want them to do "labor, including prostitution" or that I can outright refuse to employ someone if I don't like them such that they would have 0 resources?
At a philosophical level, is the above "ok" to people? If it isn't okay to people, then what is the minimum situation any individual should be allowed in society? Does every person have a right to work? Does every person have a right to certain kinds of work (not prostitution but manual labor is fine for example)? Does every person have a right to a certain amount of resources given the work they do?
A lot of people don't want to tackle the above hypothetical because most people say the above hypothetical is unreasonable. But, is it? It's going to be coming up soon. ESG metrics, digital IDs, etc... If you don't do what you're told, you want have access to resources. Many on here believe this is wrong BUT who is telling you how you have to behave? The owners of capital. If all owners of resources got together and said they only will give jobs in exchange for resources to people who met certain characteristics, why is that something that isn't allowed? If you truly believe that people don't have a right to the resources other people own then why can't the owners of resources simply decline to give their resources to other people if they don't want to? Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that everyone should have a right to earn resources from those who have capital. If that's what you believe then what are the parameters of this guarantee on other people's resources? How communist are you?
I guess one way of describing what I'm asking is "what sort of things in life should every person be guaranteed"?
Straw man. Price increases with scarcity, and land is a shared resource anyway with dubious ownership claims.
You can’t own all the anything, because supply and demand.
Let’s create a fake situation and say we’re on a spaceship and you somehow take all the water. I’ll likely take it from you without worrying about ownership rights then worry about the ethics later.
So you believe land should be a shared resource? That would in fact solve the problem but also that's pretty communist.
Otherwise, I'm not sure if I agree with the rest of what you're saying. Someone can indeed own everything. And even if it's not just 1 person owning everything. A group of 100 people can own everything and share it among themselves while they completely cutoff the other 100 people from having any access to resources if they wanted to. That can for sure happen. Nothing about your existence demands they accept your offer for labor. Not all motivations are entirely profit driven. If 100 people who own resources all decide they don't like you because you don't bow down to their moral value system, they can 100% cut you off even if you offered to work for them for free.
One person cannot own everything, unless one person is all that exists.
I own my fists. I can beat said 100%Overlord to death, and take their shit. The same is true of every single other human on the planet. They're only safe when all other humans are dead. A key component of extreme libertarianism is a wide employment of private mercenaries/security... Which means your wealth is shared, at the very least, with them. You cannot horde 100%. You need LOYAL minions. And not just enforcer thugs. You need meal preparers. Not chefs, but farmers or hunters. You need builders. Repairers. Not just for you, but for all your minions too. And they can't hate you, or you're poisoned/trapped before you know it. You need, amusingly, middle management, to organize all these minions. Suddenly that wealth is a lot more distributed.
Capitalism is a very social structure. It relies on people interacting, and those interactions going peacefully. And they may only go peacefully, if people believe in a fair-enough system. Because if it isn't "fair-enough", pop, off with their heads, someone else will make it fair enough.
In that regard, a governance or a system which ensures that the populace believes it is "fair-enough", is key to a successful society. Key to not devolving into kill-the-100%Overlord settings. The poor, us, need bread, and need circuses. We also are more effective tools if we are relatively healthy while young, and able to gain skills used to make more wealth for the leaders.