• ssboomman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where is the line drawn between a government and a legitimized systemic form of violence?

      • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is no line, legitimate violence is just one of the services a government is expected to perform

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s only “expected” to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.

          • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you want to pave roads, build bridges, and run charities, the government won’t stop you

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • ssboomman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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).

          • ssboomman@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • ssboomman@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. I’m not a liberal you dumbass
                2. Everyone knows the difference between private and personal property
                3. 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.

                • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • ssboomman@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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

          • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.

            • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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. 🤷

              • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.