Imagine thinking you can have private property without a central government to enforce it
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchist Memes
1188 readers
1 users here now
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You don’t need a government, you just need violence
And what is a government but legitimized violence?
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.
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.
OK liberal.
You have no clue what private property even is, dude. It's not simply some kind of thing someone claims for their own. Private property is literally property which is used to exploit other people's labor and material needs. Your toothbrush is not private property. Your car is not private property. The house you live in is not private property. That land you rent to someone else just so they can live is private property. That factory you force people to work in so they can put food in their mouths because they have no access to land or other sources of sustenance...those are private property.
So yeah: good fucking luck protecting land and infrastructure you don't have the capacity to even use on your own with a gun. Again, NO: the capacity to do violence, alone, is NOT sufficient to protect private property. You need a lot more than that. Your ability to beat your wife doesn't make you able to patrol a large swath of agricultural land and make sure nobody encroaches on it. Your ability to shoot someone doesn't make you capable of keeping workers out of a factory that is rightfully their collective property by virtue of the value of the blood, sweat, and tears they used to build and run that factory, especially when they have the capacity to do violence themselves and there's no state to keep them from exercising it in self-defense.
You fucking ignorant dope.
- I’m not a liberal you dumbass
- Everyone knows the difference between private and personal property
- You absolutely can protect private property without a government. If someone ownes a factory, or extra houses for rent, or access to a natural resource like water, or even infrastructure, and someone else rightfully tries to take it from them, and they patrol it with a gun to defend it, is that somehow using a government? No? Then shut the fuck up you breaindead fucking donkey.
You are wrong. Literally just objectively wrong. Stop showing your ass. Go read some therory and maybe some history. Governments has never been the only way to protect private property. Private militias, private security forces, and other forms of non government violence have always been used.
You are just trying to posture and distract from the fact that you asserted one idiot with a gun can protect private property (thus demonstrating that fact that no: you don't even know what private property is.), you ignorant, liberal moron.
An idiot with a gun can protect private property. If someone owns land that they own for the sake of generating profit, ie private property, and they protect it by grabbing a gun to keep people off of it, that is literally using a gun to protect private property. Saying that that situation is impossible is fucking moronic. I’ve never seen someone so confidently incorrect.
It’s ok man. Reading is hard. There was no distractions or posturing. Go reread the last comment and try your best to reply to bullet point number 3. Come to terms that you were wrong and move on. You just look like a dumbass
So you're just like, quadrupling down or so on the fact that you have no idea what private property is now. And want to project onto other people confident incorrectness.
Clearly there's no point continuing this with an ignorant liberal troll. GFYS.
If someone owns land with the intent of exploiting labor for profit that land is private property.
If they buy a gun to keep people off that property and personally patrol it to ensure that’s property’s safely they are protecting private property.
If they do it without the use of a government or a governing agency they are protecting private property without a government.
Therefore it is possible to protect private property without a government.
If you can’t comprehend that, you’re a moron. You don’t need a central government to protect private property, you just need violence, albeit the correct form of violence. Next time do some reading and learn a few things before you try to correct someone.
So like I said earlier, a dude with a gun can protect private property.
If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.
That's not what private property is. You can read my other comment if you care, or you can just go on feeling confident that you were right in swooping in and backing up the ignorant raving of some idiot liberal. I don't really care. 🤷
First, you are a very unpleasant person. Second, that's a weirdly specific definition of private property. Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we're using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.
First, you are a very unpleasant person
You being wrong makes me unpleasant now. LOL. Okay. I'd say that fuckers who jump into to defend ignorant liberals in arnarchist forums are unpleasant, personally.
Second, that’s a weirdly specific definition of private property.
It's the definition that's been used by leftists since the advent of capitalism, and perhaps before. Yes, liberals' attempts to disarm our language by using to mean anything that's not owned by the state has done a number on your brain, making it sound "weird" to ignorant, propagandized fools. Can't argue with that.
Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we’re using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.
Yes, capitalism is wage slavery. Correct. It has somewhat different characteristics from chattel slavery (which capitalism still uses when convenient, such as in the U.S. prison-industrial complex), but slavery it is nonetheless.
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
As already pointed out, it absolutely will stop you. Also, try doing any of those things on land claimed by private entities such as capitalists, and watch how quickly the state's goons arrest and/or shoot you.
Pooling ressources for community services and works.
It can only be communistic
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.
I'm aware they claim not to be anarchist, but they resemble it quite a bit, they are horizontally organized.
Agree, they do, but might not be any longer. Seems like they are on the junction of getting more organised to resist the bandits and agents.
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?
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
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.
Salary? Money? Without a government?
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.
Gotta promise them something until you get your military up and running.
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