No.71584
I'm shocked /liberty/, many still on this board still do not understand the difference between private and personal property.
Private property is property wherein the owner is not the user or utiliser of the resource- rather, he extracts rent from the owner and utiliser of the resource. This extraction of rent doesn't increase society's capacity for production; it's simply a way of widening the inequalities in society and creating a vampiric and lazy upper class
No.71585
It's true that resources need to be invested in the form of labour and capital, but 'money' doesn't need to be invested. There doesn't need to be an individual owner- you could have society collectively 'own' all the factories, apartments, and other forms of private property.
No.71586
>>71585
While this results in the abolition of the price system, capitalist planning may be inferior to planning by committee. After all, capitalist planning gives extra 'votes' based on how much money you have, whereas socialist planning is supposed to be fundamentally egalitarian and democratic- planning will be based directly on need in a human sense.
No.71587
>>71584
I'm shocked you didn't bother to look through the catalog to find the other half a dozen threads on this subject started by /leftypol/ guests.
No.71589
>>71587
I was looking at the first page and someone didn't know the difference. They thought trading possessions= capitalism
No.71590
>>71589
Tbh we had a really good thread on it with a lot decent posts from both sides, but for the life of me it appears to have reached the bottom. I didn't think it was that long ago. Well I take back what I said then.
No.71592
>>71590
Anyway my image explains it better than anything else I've seen. Not to brag
No.71593
No.71597
>>71593
what eh mean by diss
No.71605
>>71584
>I'm shocked /liberty/, many still on this board still do not understand the difference between private and personal property
There isn't one. It's an arbitrary line drawn for ideological reasons and the image makes a weak case for any sort of difference between the two, that combined with the paragraph fails to make a good case.
If I open something like an internet cafe in which multitudes of different people are capable of using it, I am very much utilizing my property by using it to provide people a service and thus extracting money from it. Whether it's "Widening in inequality" or not "socially necessary", it's my property and I am effectively utilizing it.
No.71606
there is no difference you are just retarded
No.71607
No.71608
>>71605
you're utilizing it as a way to extract rent like a parasite, which isn't at all needed to the actual function of the cafe as a socially useful thing.
i don't know you can't understand it, it's so obvious.
>>71607
it's talking about socially constructed rights, not about ethical or philosophical rights
No.71609
>>71608
The only extant ethical/philosophical rights are negative. The example given in the image was not.
No.71610
>wherein the owner is not the user or utiliser of the resource- rather, he extracts rent from the owner and utiliser of the resource.
> the owner is not the user or utiliser
>he extracts rent from the owner and utiliser of the resource.
>owner is not the owner but he takes from the owner.
WHAT???
Make it more distinguishable.
No.71611
>>71609
it's talking about socially constructed rights, not about ethical or philosophical rights
No.71612
>>71610
i think I just used the wrong word. i meant user and utiliser
No.71613
>>71611
Oh, I misread you. There are no socially constructed rights. What you're thinking of are privileges.
No.71615
>>71612
>the owner extracts rent from the utillser
Well your argument is still flawed.
I can make my house into a hotel
I can make my house into a storage building
My car into a taxi to give to someone
How does lending property to someone to use change its title? Its no different than just a trade between capital and utility. Like going to a gym, using the owners equipment even though he don't use it himself.
No.71616
>>71615
>how does changing what im using something for change what im using it for
ummmmmmmmmm
No.71618
>>71616
If I can't use property in the way I want to, was it ever personal to begin with?
No.71619
>>71618
yes, cause you were using it for something else
No.71620
>>71619
But I can't use it for this specific thing. Which means I don't have total control. Which doesn't make it very "personal"
No.71621
No.71622
>>71620
i think communists say you should be able to use it for what you want if you wish. could be wrong though
No.71623
>>71622
But I can't rent it out?
No.71629
No.71631
im not fully clued in on communism, i just think we should consider it more fully
No.71633
>>71631
Just be a libertarian so you can just go straight to being correct
No.71634
>>71584
I am shocked that /leftypol/ still doesn't know that there are actually three types of properties and none of them are "personal".
There is private property upon which an individual has absolute control over(his body, his land, his car, his factory).
There is communal property in which a group of people(family, village, town, city, the whole world) have control over something. This concept should be very familiar to /leftypol/
Finally there is public property, which is things that are owned by nobody(the Sun, rain, wind).
The interesting thing is that public property can become private or communal property and it has happened countless times in history. In a hunter-gather society, if someone picked some fruits from a tree in a forest, he only owned the fruits that he picked, as he used his labor to take the fruits from the tree, but he doesn't own the tree nor the fruits that he hasn't picked, someone else has as many rights to that tree as the first guy has. If, however he took care of the tree, by watering it, protecting it from bugs, making sure it has enough light, or even growing a new tree from a seed, then he owns the tree and it's labor(the fruits), as he used his own labor in order to create and maintain the tree. Only he has rights to that tree, and nobody else can pick the fruits from that tree, unless he receives permission from the "gardener".
Another example would be with cattle, if all a tribe did with a herd of buffalo, was to follow them around and kill one buffalo from time to time, they didn't own the herd, just that one buffalo that they killed If, however the tribe would protect the buffalo from predators, actually drive the buffalo to greener pastures(note that the pastures could still be public property, even if they drive the buffalo there to eat), instead of letting them wander wherever they like, then the tribe would own the entire pack of buffalo, as it becomes their communal property.
Even with land, you can't just point your finger at an unowned(public) piece of land and say that's mine, you have to use it, either by growing stuff on it or by building stuff on it.
As a side note, this would prove that besides their bodies, tools, tents and maybe horses the native Americans owned almost nothing of America, as they lived on public property, and only after the colonials came to America and built towns and other stuff, did it actually become private/communal property.
t. eastern european
>tl;dr it's not about """social necessity""" but how you use labor to transform unowned property into owned property
No.71635
>>71584
Well, so far, most lefties gave me another version of this "simple" dichotomy. While I think I crystallized out by now what it's about, it's still a bad concept. It's ideological, and the ideology is based on economic ideas that have long been refuted.
I don't quite know where to start here. Maybe that if the capitalists weren't renumerated, the workers would cash in on an opportunity that wouldn't exist for them if it wasn't for the fact that the original appropriator of that capital used his own labor to make it available, and was renumerated by the capitalist. Or maybe with how rent is higher than salaries and wages because the latter are paid ahead, before profits are actually made, and are always fixed even if the capitalist makes a loss.
No.71636
>>71586
Look up Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. It's possible to "vote" rationally for how consumer goods shall be allocatted, but not for capital goods. Mises explained it all, and I believe the majority of the board has read it.
No.71655
>>71635
I addressed that in >>71585. What makes a factory available isn't the capitalist paying 'money' but the fact that labour and resources have been invested into creating it.
No.71656
>>71655
So clearly a capitalist is not socially necessary, so to speak.
No.71658
>>71656
Clearly nobody needs to save to invest in such projects. The capitalist just points at some patch of land and money flows. No decisions that anyone else couldn't make are made. Nobody's consuming resources ahead of what would be possible if he had the same exact means to produce. Everyone has perfect information of the economy and resource allocation is a non-issue. Resources stop being finite, humanity acts in a completely predictable manner.
No.71659
>>71608
// you're utilizing it as a way to extract rent like a parasite // - No. He's trading value for value. The hypothetical cafe customers would be there because they enjoy the accouterments and products. The purpose of their lives is to live for their own sake and happiness not that of some fantasy collective imagined as "society."
// which isn't at all needed to the actual function of the cafe as a socially useful thing // - The individual is primary. Arbitrary grouping isn't. The purpose of life is to live, and in the case of Man to live well, so the proper beneficiary of morality is one's own self; hence the proper purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests by identifying that concern with one's own interests is the essence of a moral existence. This contrasts with existence as a slave to a Socialist State were one has no rights and is chattel property of the State and defacto property of the Strong-Man Dictator or his crony henchmen. Perhaps the anon aspires to such office as the reason for wishing to abase his own self by posturing as if accepting slavery were somehow good.
No.71661
>>71608
>you're utilizing it as a way to extract rent like a parasite, which isn't at all needed to the actual function of the cafe as a socially useful thing.
Please actually visit a third world country before you run your mouth about this. Renting enables more useful allocation of resources, and uplifts the poor more than the enforcement of this arbitrary distinction of private and personal property.
A cyber cafe is a great example of this. There's a reason these are big in areas like southeast Asia: You go in and pay pocket change to use a computer for an hour, whereas if you wanted to buy it yourself, you'd pay a year's worth of wages or more. This isn't predatory - these customers would not have access to a computer without this service being provided, and nobody would bother to provide this service without a profit incentive.
No.71662
>>71658
Yes, he needs to save his 'money'. It doesn't prove he's necessary to the operation.
>>71659
Fedora tipping post
No.71663
>>71661
I didn't say people don't get any utility out of renting; I'm saying that landlordism isn't necessary and the apartments could be collectively owned
No.71664
>>71662
> saving money to actually build the operation to begin with isn't necessary
wat
No.71665
No.71666
>>71665
So you're actually retarded then?
No.71667
>>71666
No. I'm not to blame for your inability to comprehend an alternative system.
No.71668
>>71665
It's not, but stealing the stuff is harder.
No.71669
>>71667
> Your inability to comprehend an alternative system
You're joking, right? What alternative system? You're just trying to glorify theft of one man's property under the guise of him "not utilizing his property" (which he is in all scenarios) and then your criticism of his ownership becomes "not socially necessary" as though A.) You know what is "socially necessary" and B.) the social beliefs of the society would somehow inherently carry legitimate judgement on anything based on the fact that it's a societal judgement alone. If I own something, then I own something. I can use my computer to watch pornography and do nothing else with it, and you can consider that not to be"socially necessary" if you like but that's not really an argument, that's just saying "Gee, if it were mine, I'd sure use it differently!" which is not really an argument for anything, it's just you stating a preference of how something should be used if it were yours or owned by others, but lo and behold, it's not, and there's no real reason as to why it should be yours or anyone else's. He invested in it, got the operation started, and utilized it to provide other people with a service they value. You on the other hand just want it under the guise that you know what's good for "society" (if that's to be treated as a legitimate construct), and even then implying that your estimate as to what is good for an arbitrary number of individuals somehow means anything.
Something to note is that a good number of people in this thread have already addressed you, some far better than I have and you didn't even have an argument back. All you said to one individual who tried to address your points was "fedora tipping post". It seems as though you're the one who appears to have a hard time comprehending other lines of thought.
No.71674
>>71669
>What alternative system?
A system without money and capitalists, perhaps?
Low IQ post.
No.71675
>>71613
Everybody talks about property rights without necessarily having any sort of philosophical position. Get over it
No.71676
>>71669
>Something to note is that a good number of people in this thread have already addressed you, some far better than I have and you didn't even have an argument back.
Something to note is that I've plenty of replies you fucking idiot. I ignored approximately one post from someone that's just saying 'WELL I LIKE MY SYSTEM OF PROPERTY AND CAN'T FATHOM ANYTHING ELSE' as if there were only one way to categorise objects.
No.71677
>>71674
>>71674
>A system without money and capitalists, perhaps?
So a system of stagnation essentially? If you want to be retarded then do so, but at your own costs, not anyone else's..
>>71676
>Something to note is that I've plenty of replies you fucking idiot.
Yeah and you don't really have a proper response to any of them you moron, you don't actually have any arguments, just blank and borderline nonsensical statements (investing to start a project isn't necessary to the project).
All this talk of what's socially necessary and yet you forgot the crucial social necessity of castrating yourself so as to keep the next generation from being as dumb as you are. Kill yourself you fucking idiot.
No.71678
>>71634
There were tribes that lived sedentary lifestyles and noticeably improved the land they lived on through agriculture and the creation of permanent settlements. The Caddo nation are the first that come to mind since I live fairly close to their historical territory, but they were far from the only ones.
No.71679
In reality there's no such thing as property, it's just a social concept that grants legitimacy to violence used to enforce one's will over certain objects, ideas being one of them (you might disagree, but the state doesn't). The personal/private distinction is one based upon how certain property is used, it's a definition, not an essential trait of an object, because property isn't an essential trait either. It's a distinction that's made because under different circumstances property can be used for different things. Proudhon simultaneously called property theft, tyranny, and freedom, and those are all true. The idea of property can allow you to assume control over an object, historically arable land was a big one, and demand tribute from its use: this is theft because you are using your violent control over the object to demand payment, payment in labor which ideally exceeds whatever labor you might've originally put into it (the entire idea behind investing or starting a business). Property is tyranny because when someone has exclusive control over something I need (whether to live or to just exist normally in society), that gives them control over me, control that is only limited by their own benevolence or the competition of other proprietors. Property is freedom because by having exclusive control over the things I need, namely a livelihood, that prevents others from having control over me anymore than I have control over them, creating an equal and mutualistic situation.
But again, ultimately property doesn't exist, it's just an idea men have created that has mainly been used historically and currently to justify authority, oppression, and exploitation. It's the height of hypocrisy that supposed anti-authoritarians here unquestionably accept and protect the main idea that has been the source of authority.
No.71680
>>71677
platinum mad
>>71679
There is nothing wrong with the individual's violence.
No.71682
>>71634
You treat property like it's a literal object, like an element that can change into different chemicals. Your distinctions are just as made up as private/personal or any other.
> In a hunter-gather society, if someone picked some fruits from a tree in a forest, he only owned the fruits that he picked
That's completely inaccurate. Hunter-gatherers had a extremely communal system where all resources belonged to the tribe. In a few of them the hunter wasn't even allowed to eat his own kill. Individuals would own certain objects, like their knife or jewelry, but never resources.
>>71680
A world of individual violence does not serve my rational self-interest. Individual violence being limited to the protection of an individual's freedom, does.
No.71683
>>71682
There are no worlds of individual violence, only particular cases of violence which you may find good or bad.
No.71684
>>71683
And it is in my interest to create a system the limits cases of violence that I find bad.
No.71685
>>71684
You see that there is nothing wrong with it in of itself.
No.71687
>>71685
I would say that since humans are innately pro-social animals, violence inherently causes not just destruction of society, but also damages the psychological wellbeing of humans and prevents them from living the Good Life.
No.71689
>>71584
>doesn't increase society's capacity for production
nope lol
No.71694
>>71677
>investing to start a project isn't necessary to the project
r e t a r d
You get no more replies
No.71696
>>71694
Because that's obviously not what I said. Investing resources is necessary, capitalists aren't. You're so fucking dumb, like everyone with that flag (possibly always same poster
No.71697
>>71696
> Investing resources is necessary, capitalists aren't
That's like saying planting and farming is necessary but the farmers aren't, you're not really making a lot of sense, and now resort to nothing but ad hominem.
No.71700
>>71675
>Everybody is wrong. Get over it
FTFY
No.71703
>>71697
By investing resources he just means investing labor and materials. The Soviet Union did that, Anarchist Spain did that, the fucking Babylonian Empire did that. It's not that hard.
No.71704
>>71697
Capital is necessary, having individuals whose only role to society is having ownership over capital is not, as >>71703 points out.
No.71787
>>71704
market proves otherwise
No.71788
>>71787
>what is market socialism
>the masses are too stupid to manage their lives-I mean capital themselves, they need a strong state-I mean employer to use authority to tell them what to do
No.71789
>>71788
The first is when others make you do something, the second when you can reject demands.
No.71791
>>71789
No, the first uses overt force of the gun to coerce me, the second uses covert force of property. The state functions no differently than a similarly big proprietor, both demand obedience while both say I can leave if I want to.
No.71792
>>71791
Property means you don't get kicked out of yours.
No.71793
>>71703
>By investing resources he just means investing labor and materials.
I thought he was talking about unicorns and ice cream?
>The Soviet Union did that, Anarchist Spain did that, the fucking Babylonian Empire did that. It's not that hard
The question isn't whether it's hard or not, I'm sure a person with an IQ above 78 could farm as well, the question is whether it's necessary and what do you know, it is. The Soviet Union could have just as well allocated farming duty away from traditional farmers (as they could be seen as unnecessary) and allocate that duty to another class of individuals entirely, that doesn't mean that this is a rational course of action.
>>71704
>Capital is necessary, having individuals whose only role to society is having ownership over capital is not
But this is a fairly slippery slope. We have a process that is essential as admitted before and we have an individual (or rather the position) that specializes in committing to the action and you render it unnecessary? Well then by logical deduction pretty much any position or any part of an operation is completely unnecessary.
We can throw the hypothetical situation that one individual on his own could probably thus run an entire restaurant on his own because while the cooking, waiting of tables, investment, etc are all important, the positions specialized in doing so are unnecessary as well, but as we know this would be highly inefficient and thus in a market, we hire people who specialize in those positions to commit to that function. Same with the capitalist, as opposed to investing resources yourself (that you might not even have) into a project, you can get someone else to take that risk for you.
>>71788
Just to be clear, you can cooperatively own a business and along with it your own capital with a number of individuals you choose. Hell, you can let the co-workers have co-ownership of your capital if you want. No one is stopping you (unless there's some regulation that makes your life ten times harder, in which case welcome to life under the state), but don't steal from others under some implication that you have a right to his property under this guise of knowing "what is necessary". If you understand what is and isn't "necessary" in any given business, then why not try and get your own communal operation going? Most people operating in the market get capitalist investment as they deem it to be necessary, why not prove them wrong by not getting investment from capitalists and go your own route?
No.71794
>>71675
It doesn't matter what "most people" think, the nature of rights remain consistent regardless.
No.71803
>>71793
The specialised individual doesn't have to be a capitalist
No.71804
>>71794
And the nature of words remains the same regardless of your butthurt. Usual definition of property right = legal construct
No.71807
I'll give you a book with pretty pictures in it so you don't have to do too much reading.
No.71822
>>71803
That doesn't change the legitimacy of the capitalist. You can have a commune if you want. There's no valid reason why nobody can employ their labor and capital individually. It's entirely a matter of personal preference. No moral, legal or economic law denies it.
No.71823
>>71675
>I am new and make assumptions. Here me roar.
No.71824
>>71804
So what about a person living on the land and inhabiting and using it like homesteading or like the native peoples of Nepal does that not count as a property right for them? Also not the previous anon you were talking to just to be sure because of the same flags.
No.71846
>>71792
Except the vast majority of people do not own the property they use, someone else does. Therefor, property for the vast majority people means they can be kicked out of what they use.
>>71793
> we have an individual (or rather the position) that specializes in committing to the action and you render it unnecessary?
A Capitalist is defined as someone who owns substantial amount of Capital, they're not necessarily the same person who carefully manages it. Furthermore, under Capitalism Capital is managed in whatever way creates the most profit, not whatever way fulfills the most needs and desires.
>but don't steal from others under some implication that you have a right to his property
Theft is an idea that only has validity if property does, and property has no inherent legitimacy, it's simply a social construct that is ideally supposed to reduce conflict.
>If you understand what is and isn't "necessary" in any given business, then why not try and get your own communal operation going? Most people operating in the market get capitalist investment as they deem it to be necessary, why not prove them wrong by not getting investment from capitalists and go your own route?
Coops still exist under Capitalism, they're not somehow non-capitalistic because they have workplace democracy and an absence of exploitation considering they're still producing for exchange in order to make a profit on the market.
>>71794
What are the nature of rights, how can you prove they exist?
>>71824
It's still a legal construct in that case. It's probably a useful one, as opposed to property rights in a Capitalist society.
No.71847
>>71846
Property is not respected today, it is commandeered by the state.
No.71849
>>71847
It always has been because it has primarily been to the state's and the ruling class' advantage, not the people's. If you have an agrarian society where 90% of people are tenant-farmers, they're not going to recognize the landlord's property claim, just like the state doesn't recognize the claim of property that's not in their interest.
No.71850
>>71849
The fact that some are fine with landlords is the reason there are houses at all.
No.71853
>>71846
>Furthermore, under Capitalism Capital is managed in whatever way creates the most profit, not whatever way fulfills the most needs and desires.
Profit is made by fulfilling consumer demand which of course are their needs and desires, that's sort of a contradiction. If people needs and desires aren't met by the products in question then they wouldn't buy the products and in turn the producers wouldn't make profit. So yes, capital is used to satisfy needs and desires and thus profit is what is made in return.
>Theft is an idea that only has validity if property does, and property has no inherent legitimacy
As human beings we need to take advantage of the resources around us to survive, this includes our own bodies and the resources we find around this. This lends us to taking ownership of resources and using them to how we see fit (Whether it be to feed family members, exchange it for other goods, etc). Calling it a social construct doesn't really do much to deplete it's validity or anything else on the matter.
>Coops still exist under Capitalism
A coop (as the term is widely used to describe certain industries) isn't exactly the same as a communal operation, but I'll give it a pass since some Coops do fit the bill.
>they're still producing for exchange in order to make a profit on the market
Correct, they have to provide people something they value on the market in order to keep paying for their own functions.
No.71854
>>71608
>you're utilizing it as a way to extract rent like a parasite
It is not parasitic to rent out something that was created from one's own labor. Otherwise, the product/service being rented would not exist, and both tenant and leaser do not benefit. And how is this not "socially necessary" when both benefit from such a relationship?
No.71855
>>71696
>Investing resources is necessary
And the ones who do that are capitalists.
No.71856
>>71846
>Except the vast majority of people do not own the property they use, someone else does
If you are talking about housing, 67% of housing units are occupied by their owner.
No.71875
>>71855
to add to this so he might understand, if you invest resources and labor into something, for example a farm and create it all your own, then you are investing capital into it even if you use it yourself
if you sell your labor to someone, you are a capitalist using your labor (which is a form of capital) as you see fit
if you buy or trade anything with voluntary exchange, then you are pushing around capital
if you are a human being that associates with other human beings using voluntary means, you are a capitalist, and the whole prole/porky idea is a false dichotomy because EVERY HUMAN BEING PART OF A VOLUNTARY SOCIETY IS CATEGORICALLY A PORKY
you can go be a hermit and not rely on others in order to not be a porky if you wish
No.71923
>>71846
>What are the nature of rights, how can you prove they exist?
As I am the sole owner of myself, rights deductively follow from this premise.
No.71925
>>71846
>What are the nature of rights, how can you prove they exist?
Don't think of it too much as having rights. Formal Logic Man once explained that the word was used in the sense of being in the right, or being of the right. That you own rights like you'd own property is a convenient and helpful way to think of it but still, you should keep the etymologie in mind, it clears up things.
To me, the fact that it's impossible not to make normative statements is one proof that rights exist. Try going a day without making a single normative statement.
The other, more conclusive proof is that normative statements are coherent in the first place. "Thou shalt not kill" would make sense even in a universe in which everyone had a preference for killing each other, and in which doing so was universally seen as expedient.
Then there's the teleological worldview in general, but you first have to subscribe to it. When you do, the whole problem of rights becomes kind of trivial. If humans cannot help but try to achieve perfection, then the question of what you ought to do naturally turns into what you ought to do to achieve this perfection. So to speak, every action turns moral, the only question is whether it's morally right - perfective - or morally wrong. I subscribe to such a worldview because I believe it's the only way to make sense of the world
Lastly, there's argumentation ethics. You cannot coherently deny that you yourself own your body (except by saying that it's God that owns your body and you're it's shareholder, I believe). That alone is proof for self-ownership, for example.
So there you have it, four different proofs that rights are a thing.
No.71928
>>71923
what if you are posessed?
No.71946
>>71584
This ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of use cases are that 'personal property' and 'private property' are so commonly exchanged in meaning and conflated in definition that the only reason for the distinction is for ideology and minority edge cases.
No.71947
>>71928
Wow comrade, you're on a whole 'nother level of synthesis than me.
No.72009
No.72044
>>71946
Glad even the mutualists get it.
No.72112
>>71946
the reason for the distinction is to make clear 'abolish private property' in no way means stealing toothbrushes. do you not see this as a useful distinction?
you are FUCKING retarded bro
No.72113
>>72112
Personal property becomes private property the moment you make a business spreadsheet on your computer or use your home bar/yeast/food rations to sell alcohol. I'd say he's perfectly right in saying it's arbitrary.
No.72133
>>72113
but neither of those are true
private property is absentee ownership
btw, before you point out that you could use your house for absentee ownership: that doesn't mean you *are* using it for exploitation, so no one cares
No.72135
>>72133
There is no non-scarce good that is inexhaustible. Anything you consume or preserve for later consumption is exploited. Nothing keeps its value after consumption. Anyone using your property is actively depleting resources you could have consumed, yet he is doing no damage to you? Define by what right and why should he be entitled to a specific share of consumables by the virtue of being alive.
No.72412
Private means personal.
Private property is personal property.
You just say renting out shouldn't exist.
No.72465
>>71584
>rights
>social necessity
>exploitation
The philosophical burden from any one of these is more than communism can bear. Do these people just not understand what kind of extreme ontological commitments they're making?
No.72709
No.72710
>>72709
In of itself it doesn't imply nor deny any. All it means is no hierarchy and that's it.
No.72711
>>72710
No hierarchy, so we do not obey to anything
No.73728
>>71680
>Having a political ideology
>Collectivist
>Using Stirner memes
Get outta here
No.73743
>>72709
>>72711
Wow, Brandon, I hope I can be as cool as you some day.