Imagine thinking you can have private property without a central government to enforce it
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.
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
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.
If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.
And that's a world you want to live in? Where you have to defend yourself from violent people? The point was not what if your neighbor is more violent, I just said that because it worked well as a response, and most people would understand. What about when your neighbor is more capable of inflicting violence? More skilled with firefights, or physically stronger? The powerful end up with all the stuff.
How is that any different with capitalism now? The state just legitimizes that, it doesn’t stop anything. Private property and the state need to go.
Yeahhh it'll be great. It's basically anarchism except all the power systematically flows to one person
Thanks for the only comment that wasn't annoying. I miss that era of the internet. Feeling doomed used to be edgy.
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.
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?
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.
So except for all the inherent problems of existing in non-ideal conditions and outside of isolation
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
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.
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.
