"If private property is violence or oppression, then how would you separate people from their property? "
"Would you do it without violence or oppression? If so please tell me how."
Try asking hitler to stop killing people and tell me how that goes.
"How much is one allowed to own?"
you don't understand how anarchy works do you.
private property can not exist without a government. As the first self-proclaimed anarchist said: "Property is theft".
"If someone accumulates a store of food in case of a future food shortage while someone else chooses to rest and play, do you think the slacker owns the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain?"
That's essentially what owning capital is in a market.
"Try asking hitler to stop killing people and tell me how that goes."
Okay, so you would use violence, thanks for answering that.
"you don't understand how anarchy works do you.
private property can not exist without a government. As the first self-proclaimed anarchist said: "Property is theft"."
It is obvious to me that we are using the same word "anarchy" to describe two very different things. What's your reasoning for claiming that private property can not exist without a government? It is the other way around. There is no private property as long as people believe that the government owns everything and you just get to use it including your own body as long as the government lets you. Just because I say "taxes are voluntary" doesn't make it so. In the same way saying "property is theft" doesn't make it so.
"That's essentially what owning capital is in a market."
What do you mean? You think the slacker owning the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain is essentially what owning capital is in a market?
"What's your reasoning for claiming that private property can not exist without a government?"
private property is in essence control over the tools another uses. This control can only come from two groups, directly from the capitalist or by the government to protect "rights". Unless the capitalist is the strongest one there and the only one with a weapon, he will have to hire guards, without the police to protect it. There are only two things stopping the guards from taking control, a sense of loyalty and the government. The only reason the government doesn't take control is the "sense of loyalty" of the police.
Essentially you need a government or a set of guards that become the new government, otherwise it is impossible for the capitalist to assert his rule. Because that is what private ownership is dictatorial, rule over a piece of land or machinery.
"Nope, capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts. What is rent but property taxes, wage-labor but a bourgeois tax on the working class, and national borders but the private property of the dominant, monopolizing corporation called "the state"? Instead, they are two expressions of coercive hierarchy, a society based on injustice and inequality.
They tell similar lies, as both bourgeois democracy and capitalism perpetuate themselves by simulating bottom-up power: you are given a sham of a vote in democracy, just as with capitalism pricing mechanisms. That is, a boycott is indistinguishable from a get-out-the-vote campaign, and equally (in-)effective, as its a series of choices in a game designed by the ruling class where every result is "they win".
In force the two are indistinguishable also: Any private property enforcement system sufficient to protect capitalists' interests is indistinguishable from a state. This includes "private security officers" as much as it includes statist ones --- both are intended to protect capitalist / statist interests in a given region, and maintain oppressive systems and conduits of power."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11mr9p/can_capitalism_exist_without_the_state/
Capitalism can not exist without violence. The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence. There is no besides violence to combat somebody willing to give their life to stop you, that's what the military is for.
Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. On this topic, I suggest that you check out Democracy – The God That Failed. http://store.mises.org/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx
"capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts."
This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state.
"Capitalism can not exist without violence."
You can see my post about capitalism where I describe what it is, and that it does not require violence here. https://steemit.com/economics/@pomperipossa/capitalism-a-reply-to-kenny-part-two
"The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence."
You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer.
You can watch this youtube video about how a society could function without a state here.
this video explains it well
Notice how ancaps haven't done anything? That's probably because its a stupid ideology.
As I explained, private ownership of property itself is a state. Non-violent anything doesn't exist, that's stupid. All it would take is a single person to kill every pacifist in existence if nobody used violence to protect them. Again, the rich right now already have nothing against bombing children using white phosphorous and genocide for profit, you really think the lack of a government would change that? That's as delusional as you can be.
Capitalism rewards greed. Capitalism rewards underhanded and violent tactics for more profit. Capitalism rewards death, starvation, and slavery. Capitalism must be destroyed for the worker to be free. Capitalism must be destroyed for the world to be anarchist.
To top is off I will quote the slogan of the first self-proclaimed anarchist: "Property is theft". Although future anarchists have followed up saying that's wrong. They said property doesn't objectively exist and thus can not be theft. It is simply a state. Taxes are rent. Wages are wages and Property is Slavery
"Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. "
only under capitalism
"This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state."
property rights can not exist without a state.
Property rights only exist through the state. Ownership is not an objective concept but a legal fiction.
Ownership literally just means control. Control can only exist through violence or threat of violence, the guards that are employed to keep private property in existence are the new police of the new dictator you call the owner.
"You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer."
remember when Gandhi told britian to lay down their weapons and not fight the nazis? That would have worked well, he's totally not delusional or anything lmao.
anarchy is the destruction of all unjustified hierarchy, not just the government. Anarchy means no rulers, not just one less.
"What do you mean? You think the slacker owning the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain is essentially what owning capital is in a market?"
to own capital is to control private businesses and through that control profit is extracted from the worker. The owner of capital need do nothing except own capital to survive, essentially a ruler and leech.
if you were starving and the payout on your post was your only way to access food and I used my free market to flag you, would that be violence or just my rights?
Trick question, the only thing keeping you from food would be the guard at the door of the market, not money.
The guard is your ruler and god, money means nothing. This guard is the new government, one you have just as much control over as any government under capitalism.
This happens for real every day. 20 million die a year of poverty alone. Charity or not, the system punishes conscious and rewards greed. This means those in the position to give the most have the mindset to take the most from those starving.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
this book explains the process well.
Do you even know I'm not in favor of the crony capitalism that we have today?
crony capitalism? This is exactly what the owners of capital want. This is always the end state of capitalism no matter how it starts out.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
This book still explains it, just read it.
To sum it up if you are lazy. Capitalism must always expand because profit is reinsvested. LArger businesses do better than smaller ones. This means monopolies always form and adding the tendency for the rate of profit to fall they must find jobs that require high amounts of extremely cheap labor or collapse. After that they still must always expand, eventually running out of room to expand means they must either take over more land or destroy the private property they have through war and re-invest profits into re-building it, or else the system will literally grind to a halt for lack of ability to invest as rate of return drops to zero and then markets stagnate.
again, private property can not exist without a government. The ruling class always wants more power, as that is what is rewarded by this system. They gain control of the government, easily. (If they can't they overthrow it through their power as capitalists, as shown in chile and Venezuela and create a new government, usually with a dictator. Remember, the biggest capitalists all over the world supported hitler and vice versa.