There is no justification for private property, and thus, capitalism.

[BrocepCurls]

Right "libertarians" entire philosophy rests on an absolute conception of "private property". This is a fiction far worse than any religion. In no objective or metaphysical sense can anyone "own" anything, and most certainly not land and resources, which capitalism crucially rests on.

Property is conditional on the individuals around you accepting your claim to exclusive possession of an item as valid. Nothing more. Without other people validating your property claim, that claim is simply meaningless. In a world devoid of any other individual but yourself, property would be an incoherent concept.

In our current society, the vast majority of "private property" was obtained through violence and genocide. That property was then further enforced by violence, this time backed by a centralised authority with a legal monopoly on power called the state. Capitalists unjustly lay claim to all of this property, exploit the labour of the individuals who they employ there, and get away with it because they have an incredibly powerful entity backing them with violent force.

In an ideal society, that is an Anarchist one, concepts such as private property would cease to exist without the violent enforcement the state currently provides. Everyone would simply "own" whatever they personally use, gifted by each other member of the community. You could have a house, a car, and personal possessions, provided you use them yourself. Anything more, such as claims to land and resources which you do not personally use, would simply be ignored by the community. You would have no police force or state to come and protect your claims, and that which you claim as your own would simply return to communal ownership.

In short, capitalism is a system based on bogus spookery which is enforced by violence. When you remove this violence, you end up with Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Libertarian Socialism, etc. Discuss.

[fitnessislife]

Your post isn't finished. I don't see the punchline yet.

[Stizzel]

Your post isn't finished. I don't see the punchline yet.

Well he made this post using private property, I assume that is the punchline. That, or he's a retard.

[cashinout]

ITT: OP has never had a job

[OPGenesis]

Wow OP, such genius.

[BrocepCurls]

Your post isn't finished. I don't see the punchline yet.

Your neg displays your profound ignorance. Venezuela is a statist country where the means of production are predominantly owned by the state, and individuals have little autonomy over anything. You know, kind of the opposite of Anarchsim.

[Steve707]

Omw to come share your stuff with me, since you don't own the home or anything I'll just walk right in and take what I need. Thanks brah.

[RIKTER]

OP, I don't know about all that, but I did own dat ass last night!

EDIT: was not referring to OPs ass

[BrocepCurls]

Well he made this post using private property, I assume that is the punchline. That, or he's a retard.

This post was made using a computer.

[djfuzzy]

This post was made using a computer.

Your computer? Or just some computer that mysteriously exists and is owned by no man?

[iabs]

but who was human nature?

[BrocepCurls]

Your computer? Or just some computer that mysteriously exists and is owned by no man?

This computer being "mine" is conditional on everyone around me agreeing that I have an exclusive right to use it. That is as far as my claim that this computer is "mine" goes.

In Anarchism, since people predominantly wish to co-operate and live harmoniously, everyone would be happy to let me have this computer and use it for my personal needs. If someone came and tried to take it, the community would respond and help me protect it.

However, if an individual was overstepping his bounds and laying claim to land and resources which he does not personally use, and tries to use that to exploit the labour of individuals (not that anyone would actually need to work for him in an Anarchist society, but hypothetically), then the rest of the community would cease to view his property claims as legitimate. The land he claims as he owns simply returns to communal ownership, and he has no state to initiate violence against the community to prevent this happening. Simples.

[Steve707]

Your idea might work with a group of about 10 people, but there are these things in human nature called greed and laziness. So in the real world, nothing you just said will actually happen.

[Smob3]

So that means your body belongs to the community.

Bend over, Tyrone's on his way to personally use it.

[BrocepCurls]

Your idea might work with a group of about 10 people, but there are these things in human nature called greed and laziness. So in the real world, nothing you just said will actually happen.

How would greed manifest itself in such a society? The products of greed are currently enforced by the violence of the state. Remove that, and even the greediest person has no choice but to accept that he does not have a "right" to anything he wishes.

[BrocepCurls]

So that means your body belongs to the community.

Bend over, Tyrone's on his way to personally use it.

Your body doesn't "belong" to anyone, including yourself. Outside of a capitalist mindset where everything is viewed as property, the idea of considering a human being as being "owned" is laughable. Self ownership is incoherent as a concept.

You don't own yourself, you are yourself. Nothing more.

[dabbmw2002]

opens up a idealistic black hole with nothing better to offer.......than asks us to discuss.

[Eagleborn777]

Okay then everything you own is mine because you think private property is stupid.

Have fun being poor you ****ing dumbass

Has OP ever had a gf, bet never married.

Edit: Tell a girl she cant have make up or her shampoo cuz private possessions are stupid.

Seriously ban this guy ��������

His words are cancer!!!

[djfuzzy]

This computer being "mine" is conditional on everyone around me agreeing that I have an exclusive right to use it. That is as far as my claim that this computer is "mine" goes.

In Anarchism, since people predominantly wish to co-operate and live harmoniously, everyone would be happy to let me have this computer and use it for my personal needs. If someone came and tried to take it, the community would respond and help me protect it.

However, if an individual was overstepping his bounds and laying claim to land and resources which he does not personally use, and tries to use that to exploit the labour of individuals (not that anyone would actually need to work for him in an Anarchist society, but hypothetically), then the rest of the community would cease to view his property claims as legitimate. The land he claims as he owns simply returns to communal ownership, and he has no state to initiate violence against the community to prevent this happening. Simples.

I don't agree that the computer is yours. I'll PM you my address, just make sure it's packaged securely. Thanks.

[Qong]

Everyone would simply "own" whatever they personally use...

I think that's the whole idea OP. That's how the idea of private property and private land started. People have always used the land for various things, to hunt animals, to gather food, to gather other resources such as water and wood. That has always happened. Early on it was done in groups or packs as that made it far easier for people to survive, and that's certainly the way pre-humans lived as well. Up until recently a single man wasn't able to survive on his own.

In recent human history individuals have been able to use the land on their own. With their own efforts they have been able to grow crops, chop down forests, build structures, hunt animals, etc. With the help of technological advancements, from the wheel to agriculture to metal working, a single man can use the land all on his own and survive just fine. There is no need to rely on a community or anything bigger than him and his family. Thus it makes sense that he should be able to control, to own, the land that he puts his resources into. His resources went into it. Not someone else's resources. Not the community's resources. Not the state's resources.

The idea of not having private property and private land is silly. It would kill competition and it would lower the value and production of all of the property available to us. With private property people compete against each other to better themselves. To better themselves they better their products, whatever it is that they're producing. None of that would happen without private property. If all property was public then nobody would put in any effort to better it and to increase production.

[BrocepCurls]

Take away the violence and greed of the state and you have violence and greed of the people you ****ing potato.

The state is not inherently violent or greedy, it merely upholds certain principles, one of the main ones being private property (if we're talking about capitalist nations). People can be violent or greedy, yes, but without the enforcement of the state, their violence and greed goes nowhere.

Like the example I gave, in anarchism if an individual begins laying claim to vast swaths of land as his own, all that will happen is the rest of society stops viewing his claims as legitimate. The land returns to being communally owned. He has no big guns to call to say otherwise.

[BrocepCurls]

I think that's the whole idea OP. That's how the idea of private property and private land started. People have always used the land for various things, to hunt animals, to gather food, to gather other resources such as water and wood. That has always happened. Early on it was done in groups or packs as that made it far easier for people to survive, and that's certainly the way pre-humans lived as well. Up until recently a single man wasn't able to survive on his own.

In recent human history individuals have been able to use the land on their own. With their own efforts they have been able to grow crops, chop down forests, build structures, hunt animals, etc. With the help of technological advancements, from the wheel to agriculture to metal working, a single man can use the land all on his own and survive just fine. There is no need to rely on a community or anything bigger than him and his family. Thus it makes sense that he should be able to control, to own, the land that he puts his resources into. His resources went into it. Not someone else's resources. Not the community's resources. Not the state's resources.

The idea of not having private property and private land is silly. It would kill competition and it would lower the value and production of all of the property available to us. With private property people compete against each other to better themselves. To better themselves they better their products, whatever it is that they're producing. None of that would happen without private property. If all property was public then nobody would put in any effort to better it and to increase production.

So when many individuals put their resources into a piece of land, as is what happens during production, they should all be able to control, to own the land they put their resources into, correct?

Great, you've pretty much summarised the concept of communal ownership.

[OPGenesis]

This computer being "mine" is conditional on everyone around me agreeing that I have an exclusive right to use it. That is as far as my claim that this computer is "mine" goes.

In Anarchism, since people predominantly wish to co-operate and live harmoniously, everyone would be happy to let me have this computer and use it for my personal needs. If someone came and tried to take it, the community would respond and help me protect it.

However, if an individual was overstepping his bounds and laying claim to land and resources which he does not personally use, and tries to use that to exploit the labour of individuals (not that anyone would actually need to work for him in an Anarchist society, but hypothetically), then the rest of the community would cease to view his property claims as legitimate. The land he claims as he owns simply returns to communal ownership, and he has no state to initiate violence against the community to prevent this happening. Simples.

What world you living in, brah?

[Qong]

So when many individuals put their resources into a piece of land, as is what happens during production, they should all be able to control, to own the land they put their resources into, correct?

Great, you've pretty much summarised the concept of communal ownership.

You're trying to switcheroo me there buddy.

What you're describing is a partnership. A group of people working together to better their shared property. That's different than a person agreeing to work to better the property of another person. Just because he agreed to work to better the property of another does not give him any ownership rights of said property.

[BrocepCurls]

You're trying to switcheroo me there buddy.

What you're describing is a partnership. A group of people working together to better their shared property. That's different than a person agreeing to work to better the property of another person. Just because he agreed to work to better the property of another does not give him any ownership rights of said property.

2 points:

1) Ownership "rights" of anything don't exist, in any objective sense.

2) In a stateless society, no one would agree to work to better the "property" of another person. Why would anyone need to? That exists only in capitalist societies that are enforced by authority and violence, where people are forced to trade their labour for a tiny fraction of the value they produce, because the alternative is quite literally starvation. Do away with embedded authority and hierarchical power structures and no one would be working for anyone else. That happens now because the system we live in forces them to.

[Stizzel]

This post was made using a computer.

Tard status confirmed

[BrocepCurls]

Tard status confirmed

ITT Stizzel still thinks that the existence of "property" is some kind of objective, metaphysical truth about the universe, rather than simply a social behavioral pattern conditional on the agreement of everyone around you. That pretty much confirms his IQ is <80, pretty typical of "Anarcho" Capitalists.

[MojoTheMonkey]

How exactly do you propose to motivate people to develop hard to make inventions such as computers and vehicles without the reward of personal wealth?

[Qong]

2 points:

1) Ownership "rights" of anything don't exist, in any objective sense.

2) In a stateless society, no one would agree to work to better the "property" of another person. Why would anyone need to? That exists only in capitalist societies that are enforced by authority and violence, where people are forced to trade their labour for a tiny fraction of the value they produce, because the alternative is quite literally starvation. Do away with embedded authority and hierarchical power structures and no one would be working for anyone else. That happens now because the system we live in forces them to.

1. I just made a reasonable argument for the private ownership of property. Early on humans had no need to privately own anything because they couldn't make use of it. With technological advancements individuals can now do amazing things all by themselves. An individual's efforts should benefit that individual and that individual and his efforts should be respected and protected, not shared with everyone else against his will.

2. That doesn't make much sense. People agree to work to better the property of another because they too benefit. That's why we have all of these amazing things that we have now. That's why you have your computer. That's why I have my cell phone. These things are the result of many people working towards a goal and making that goal a reality. Everyone involved benefited including us consumers.

I think the major issue is that private property is a huge incentive for people to work harder and smarter. If all property were shared then what incentive would there be for people to do new things, to take new risks? There isn't any. There's no reason to take risks. There's no reason to advance. Everyone would be complacent with what they have. Everyone would do as little as they can, contribute as little as they can, because everything that they're working on is shared with everyone else. Their individual contributions are meaningless and any extra effort that they put in does not gain them anything.

[Stizzel]

ITT Stizzel still thinks that the existence of "property" is some kind of objective, metaphysical truth about the universe, rather than simply a social behavioral pattern conditional on the agreement of everyone around you. That pretty much confirms his IQ is <80, pretty typical of "Anarcho" Capitalists.

Tard status confirmed again