I fully comprehend the point you raise, and I refuse to adhere to it due to the simple fact it is the cause of all the mess we live in today, especially the idea of private property. That's why you live in fear someone may trespass, someone may take what you believe is yours. The state/governments are the ones who created private property, making you believe you own something.
Why do you think this? I think this is objectively wrong, but I'm curious who even made a compelling case to you in order to get you to believe this. Or do you believe in "personal property" (private property with more definitional issues) instead?
kumbayaism? Another -ism? Everyone is good at tagging and categorizing, not many are at evaluating and observing.
Fair point. Everything is an -ism and it's getting annoying. I read that back and it annoyed me. My point is that you seem to be pointing towards "what if we all just got along" or Imagine by John Lennon. This will not happen no matter how much it is desired and oftentimes the people culturally adopting beliefs along these lines are just giving ideological cover and fertile soil for ideologies like socialism/communism to grow. The growth will not be anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, it will be authoritarian socialism/communism. In fact, I would argue, if you wanted to live in an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist community, the best way to do that would be within a Hoppean framework. It is not a clever insight to say "the state defines who owns what". That is only partially true in reality. Private property ownership is such an innate part of this world that even animals understand it. Dogs very much understand when a toy is theirs, when a home is theirs, and will defend it with violence. Those things are the dog's private property. A government didn't define that the dog owns that property and if the government says it's not the dog's that doesn't make it true. If a government steals that property it doesn't make it not the dog's property. Try to tell a dog "private property is just like your opinion man, what if we all shared" when he doesn't want you in his territory or to have his toy and you will find out how real and innate private property is to this world.
But hey, who am I to tell you what or what not to do? What or what not to believe. People voluntarily serve the purpose that most fits their needs. Nothing personal here, simply sharing ideas I know you might disagree with.
Fair. I think you're a good faith actor engaging in a good faith discussion and I generally appreciate your input when I see it on this platform. That being said, I don't think you put forth the effort to seriously engage with my points. This is a very common anarchist/libertarian response where instead of seriously engaging and attempting to take seriously a limited set of choices, they retreat to the abstract. It is responding to a question of "Somebody is breaking into your house. You have a gun and are proficient with it. Do you shoot them or attempt to leave/hide?" with "I would never live in an unsafe neighborhood in the first place"/"I would never own a gun". It is a behavior Michael Malice points out that his twitter followers exhibit often.
Why do you think this? I think this is objectively wrong, but I'm curious who even made a compelling case to you in order to get you to believe this. Or do you believe in "personal property" (private property with more definitional issues) instead?
Fair point. Everything is an -ism and it's getting annoying. I read that back and it annoyed me. My point is that you seem to be pointing towards "what if we all just got along" or Imagine by John Lennon. This will not happen no matter how much it is desired and oftentimes the people culturally adopting beliefs along these lines are just giving ideological cover and fertile soil for ideologies like socialism/communism to grow. The growth will not be anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, it will be authoritarian socialism/communism. In fact, I would argue, if you wanted to live in an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist community, the best way to do that would be within a Hoppean framework. It is not a clever insight to say "the state defines who owns what". That is only partially true in reality. Private property ownership is such an innate part of this world that even animals understand it. Dogs very much understand when a toy is theirs, when a home is theirs, and will defend it with violence. Those things are the dog's private property. A government didn't define that the dog owns that property and if the government says it's not the dog's that doesn't make it true. If a government steals that property it doesn't make it not the dog's property. Try to tell a dog "private property is just like your opinion man, what if we all shared" when he doesn't want you in his territory or to have his toy and you will find out how real and innate private property is to this world.
Fair. I think you're a good faith actor engaging in a good faith discussion and I generally appreciate your input when I see it on this platform. That being said, I don't think you put forth the effort to seriously engage with my points. This is a very common anarchist/libertarian response where instead of seriously engaging and attempting to take seriously a limited set of choices, they retreat to the abstract. It is responding to a question of "Somebody is breaking into your house. You have a gun and are proficient with it. Do you shoot them or attempt to leave/hide?" with "I would never live in an unsafe neighborhood in the first place"/"I would never own a gun". It is a behavior Michael Malice points out that his twitter followers exhibit often.