You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Property rights exist because we have morality
You should probably read this book, What is Property by PJ Proudhon, if you want to continue to call your self an anarchist, if you do.
You should probably read this book, What is Property by PJ Proudhon, if you want to continue to call your self an anarchist, if you do.
I'm not very fond of labels. I haven't read the book but I'm guessing you do not think private property should or does exist? Could you please give me the TLDR-version of the book? Do you think that everyone owns them selves?
The book is the founding document of modern anarchism, it is very long, somewhat dated, and didn't include all the answers.
Here is an interpretation of it from some years later:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Much like being a geologist, or engineer, anarchism requires study, otherwise the word has no meaning.
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
Anarchism requires no study or even thought. It requires merely the rejection of aggression as a way to get one's way.
Rejecting aggression is certainly a part of it, but how do you propose to distribute goods?
There is more to living that just not being an abusive jerk.
By 'distribute goods' are you asking a simple question of logistics or do you actually mean 'live at the expense of others'?
We all live at the expense of others.
You have shoes because political prisoners in china make them.
You have TV's for the same reason.
But back to the point, do you intend to let wage slavery persist, or do you have an alternative?
You can't say that political prisoners are a result of the free market. Slavery and voluntary exchange are mutually exclusive so what do you mean by wage slavery?
The alternative to living at the expense of others is to have a free society, a free market. It is obvious that we have very different definitions of anarchy. What is your proposed alternative?
It seems you blame employers for the fact that humans have needs and that life is a struggle. Are you a utopian? Will no one have to work after you impose your "solutions" on everyone?
Ah - I thought that sounded like campus lefty bs... A few obvious tells from the front page of that so-called 'anarchist' site: The Chomsky effect, Interview with a Mexican Comrade, Down With The Family, When Non-Violence is Suicide, Anarchists-Intersectionality-Races-Islamophobia-Etc. Does that sound like a rather large wheelbarrow of the same, old, extreme-left narrative to anyone else?
But go ahead and read that Proud-horn waffle (if you can wade through such thick molasses) - just treat it as the opposite of what @freebornsociety purports it to be. And ain't it kinda funny how the property-is-theft crowd lay such a stern claim of ownership upon the meaning of anarchy? Literally, the word means 'no ruler'.
But it is noteworthy that @freebornsociety is able to acknowledge that 'Rule by force is the disease' and I'm curious about if / how they think the left is any less culpable of this than the right...
I agree that it was written for a better educated audience than the average today, but folks didn't have anything to do but read and discuss ideas back then, once the work was done.
This book does a better job of breaking it down into bite sized pieces.
If the status quo refuses to acknowledge the violence that keeps them in power the only way to reach them is to show them the errors attached to using violence to stay in power.
If you believe that the status quo isn't kept in place by violence, try resisting when a cop pulls you over for not following the rules like a good boot licker.
They will literally crash you car without regard for your safety, I know, I have first hand personal experience because of a plant, tyvm.
I am afraid that until you open your mind we are really wasting our time, but I got plenty, so go right ahead, if that is your thing.
Thank you for the link @freebornsociety, however, the interpretation of the book that you linked to here is still a pretty long read. I think reading is very important to increase your knowledge, though asking you for a TLDR-version was a mistake on my part. I realize now that what I wanted, was for you to write why and which parts of my text that you disagree with so that we can have a constructive discussion.
Otherwise, I could just counter with a link to a book that supports my side of the argument and wait for you to read it. This is not an effective way of communicating and I doubt that you would read it. If you could make a convincing argument against my text then provide a link to a book supporting it I would probably be more motivated to read the book. At the moment I'm not even sure on what we disagree on. Reading the book without knowing what I'm looking for seems like a waste of time.
This is just speculation, feel free to correct me if this is not the case but, maybe you don't have a good argument and you just want to win anyway. If this is the case it makes sense to waste my time instead of presenting arguments.