- cross-posted to:
- dank_left
- cross-posted to:
- dank_left
You must log in or register to comment.
Imagine thinking you can have private property without a central government to enforce it
You don’t need a government, you just need violence
And what is a government but legitimized violence?
Pooling ressources for community services and works.
I agree with you there. My point is that a government is not needed to have private property. Governments are inherently violent, but you can be violent without a government.
Where is the line drawn between a government and a legitimized systemic form of violence?
There is no line, legitimate violence is just one of the services a government is expected to perform
It’s only “expected” to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.
If you want to pave roads, build bridges, and run charities, the government won’t stop you
Government is top down.
Not all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property.
Again, no one said that. All I said was that violence was needed for protecting private property. Not that all forms of violence is useful for it.
You’re really bad at logic. “You can be violent without a government” does not imply you can necessarily protect private property without a government. Because being violent isn’t enough to protect private property. Only certain forms of violence are (forms which you haven’t done anything to show can be performed without a government).
Jesus Christ, I’m not bad at logic, you’re just an idiot. A really really confident idiot.
Violence is needed to protect private property.
Government is useful for protecting private property. This is because governments are inherently violent.
Does this mean that governments are the only way of protecting private property? Absolutely not. A dude with a gun can protect private property.
Does this mean that all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property? Absolutely not. But again, a dude with a gun can do a fine job protecting private property.
I’m not trying to debate you man, you’re an annoying debate lord, for the love of Christ fuck off.
If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.
What do you do when your neighbor is more violent than you?
Bend over
I used to think I was tough and crazy, until I met some tough and crazy motherfuckers.
Defend myself? I’m not sure I get your point.
And that’s a world you want to live in? Where you have to defend yourself from violent people? The point was not what if your neighbor is more violent, I just said that because it worked well as a response, and most people would understand. What about when your neighbor is more capable of inflicting violence? More skilled with firefights, or physically stronger? The powerful end up with all the stuff.
How is that any different with capitalism now? The state just legitimizes that, it doesn’t stop anything. Private property and the state need to go.
Same shit different names
It’s called livin’ in da toolshed ⚒️
Only attractive to those not-so-sharp inhabitants of said shed
Yeahhh it’ll be great. It’s basically anarchism except all the power systematically flows to one person
Oh you mean real world in practice of anarchy like in Somalia.
Anarchy is very pretty on books, in reality this is the best outcome possible after a few years escalate and after a few centuries we are back to empires fighting against each other
You’re only saying that because every time an anarchist group gains a foothold, it is forced to exist at the pleasure of more powerful states who view it in terms of profit.
If the crux of your argument is “Everytime anarchism happens it is too weak to protext itself from foreign influence.” Then you have a weak governmental system.
that goes for every single governmental system (including the current existing system if another system, say anarchy, suddenly becomes dominant). you’re pretty much going to be forced into a crippled state due to how resources are allocated on a global scale. the only way to be a semi-functional radical state is by providing a political chess piece to external opposing powers.
So anarchy doesn’t actually work ok point made. It’s like saying but if we had machines that made food from air.
But we don’t
Anarchy works, capitalists just try to destroy it as fast as they can, it just needs to happen in the US first, since it owns half the worlds military, or china. Small scale experiments like the zapatistas prove the legitimacy of the core ideas.
If the US became anarchist, there would be no such issues.
Zapatistas don’t claim they are anarchist, and they do still have to defend themselves. And apparently currently they are in crisis so serious they need to dissolve most oftheir organs to (hopefully) completely reorganise.
https://radiozapatista.org/?p=46648&lang=en
And this is not even the case where government did a full assault on them, it’s just increasing pressure.
Real life anarchy is happening right now, it happened before, it never did work. Explain how it would be different exactly?
https://youtu.be/UkkJuqTbLIU?si=p2eZEv4gr84IUoKf
The link is regarding the informal economy of Somalia a country without a government.
When I say formal economy I mean how things work in anarchy. Or are you just planning to take the did from others that are weaker then you if there isn’t enough for all?
So except for all the inherent problems of existing in non-ideal conditions and outside of isolation
do you know where your food comes from, are you aware the world resources are not infinite.
Or do I need to explain why everyone can’t own their own house on the beach because there’s is only so much costline(not to mention the environmental coats)
Explain how early human society didn’t start with anarchy exactly?..how exactly do you expect an anarchist group to survive if you and the other guys from other group both need food but there is barely enough to feed one group.
Do that and replace food by whatever you want
I think that’s part of their point.
“It’s anarchism… that I run!”
A bourgeoise of the proletariat, wait
Thanks for the only comment that wasn’t annoying. I miss that era of the internet. Feeling doomed used to be edgy.
it’s Dr Horrible’s turn!
Today, it is to everyone’s advantage to form some kind of ethnic collective. The people who share your viewpoint or from whose philosophy those catchphrases come, are the ones who are institutionalizing racism today. What about the quotas in employment? The quotas in education? And I hope to God—so I am not religious, but just to express my feeling—that the Supreme Court will rule against those quotas. But if you can understand the vicious contradiction and injustice of a state establishing racism by law. Whether it’s in favor of a minority or a majority doesn’t matter. It’s more offensive when it’s in the name of a minority because it can only be done in order to disarm and destroy the majority and the whole country. It can only create more racist divisions, and backlashes, and racist feelings.
If you are opposed to racism, you should support individualism. You cannot oppose racism on one hand and want collectivism on the other.
But now, as to the Indians, I don’t even care to discuss that kind of alleged complaints that they have against this country. I do believe with serious, scientific reasons the worst kind of movie that you have probably seen—worst from the Indian viewpoint—as to what they did to the white man.
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn’t conquer; Americans did not conquer that country.
Whoever is making sounds there, I think is hissing, he is right, but please be consistent: you are a racist if you object to that [laughter and applause]. You are that because you believe that anything can be given to Man by his biological birth or for biological reasons.
If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.
It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect—or try, for that matter, to respect—individual rights, because if they do, you are an aggressor and you are morally wrong to attack them. But if a country does not protect rights—if a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief—why should you respect the rights they do not have?
Or any country which has a dictatorship. Government—the citizens still have individual rights—but the country does not have any rights. Anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.
…
I am, incidentally, in favor of Israel against the Arabs for the very same reason. There you have the same issue in reverse. Israel is not a good country politically; it’s a mixed economy, leaning strongly to socialism. But why do the Arabs resent it? Because it is a wedge of civilization—an industrial wedge—in part of a continent which is totally primitive and nomadic.
Israel is being attacked for being civilized, and being specifically a technological society. It’s for that very reason that they should be supported—that they are morally right because they represent the progress of Man’s mind, just as the white settlers of America represented the progress of the mind, not centuries of brute stagnation and superstition. They represented the banner of the mind and they were in the right.
[thunderous applause]
I was like, what in the fuck is this person smoking to come up with this copypasta-worthy garbage… Then I skipped to the bottom and saw who wrote it. Fully checks out.
It should be illegal to post this many lines of Ayn Rand
It can only be communistic
Salary? Money? Without a government?
Gotta promise them something until you get your military up and running.
During the years of Spanish provinces in America, some small banks would own the entire land and pay the locals using their own currency only print by them, 1 coin equals 1 day of labor which was nearly enough for 2 meals, then the Spanish kingdom would forgive the landowners taxes if the locals were forced into Christian religion.
And how exactly would one enforce communist principles? What if someone starts hoarding resources?
You refuse to do the labor needed for their hoarding. You should really learn about models of ownership-by-use. People just aren’t capable of protecting/maintaining/using that much personally.
