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"?
What the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence states is a good start and foundation. There is also a massive body of common law built up over years in general for things like property, contracts, and resources that would be useful as well. Plus the past laws based on Christian understandings of morality would be generally useful as well as a hedge against many problems.
As for the situations you're describing, its complicated. I think monopolies and monopoly-like situations are cancer, but I'm skeptical of the government's ability to handle them without making things worse or becoming part of the problem themselves. You would need government enforcement (that means police powers) to ensure the laws are upheld, but its very difficult to have that without the risk of corruption or unequal enforcement, especially as morals inevitably decline and the temptation of things like bribery get higher and higher the more powerful these entities become.
Plus the whole slippery slope thing, and the obvious intent of said monopolists to go into government and try and control it for themselves, and with their vast amount of resources, it would likely be pretty easy with enough work.
The government is the middleman. Taxes are pretty much necessary for a government to function, but the money's handling depends on who in the government has control of it. If there's no government, the question is irrelevant as its basically just a lawless hellscape where might and resources alone rule, in which case, I'd say "fuck that retard, I'll go kill him and take his stuff before he kills me and takes my stuff." Its not like he has a right to his own shit that's guaranteed to him by anything, if he doesn't care about morality, then I have no reason to care about him unless I'm fine with dying like a dog. Pretending like someone's right to anything is sacred in the absence of an objective system of law and morality is a way to get milked and destroyed.
I'd posit the aforementioned hypothetical to you:
What's stopping your hypothetical monopolist from going into government and controlling all the resources and all the police power too?
He would become nothing short of a king or emperor at that point, and I'd hardly call being against such an autocracy as communism.
A hedge isn't an impregnable fortress, like I said, the decline of morality is more or less inevitable.
People failed Christianity and by extension morality.
Usury doesn't need to be punished. Being an idiot and not taking something you can't afford is the problem.
There is no reason to execute someone for allowing a friend to borrow ten dollars for a week, and asking for eleven in return.
It's not class related, and no one ever said anything about friends.