/liberty/ - Liberty

>>93832

>What's wrong with it?

Simple; buying this potentially-shitty book is not at the lead of my uses for delicious fiat paper right now, therefore all arguments from it are argument from nonargument.

:)

If you'd like to cite a bit for discussion, preferably in a format which does not require I allow intrusive scripting, we can discuss those parts.

>If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, share your disagreement

There yo go. It may not be inherent, but it is a god-damned excellent flaw in arguments from it.

>>93854

>buying

Funnily enough, lolberg literature is far more accessible free than Marxist tripe.

https://mises.org/library

>>93854

Read a book, commie.

>>93854

>I am poor therefore you have to provide me with shit.

If you are that worthless don't waste our time baking useless shitty bait posts.

>it is a god-damned excellent flaw in arguments from it

>I don't know what you're talking about therefore you lose

This is the mind of a leftist.

>>93873

This, so much. Almost all the writings of Marx I could find online either have a font for ants, or they are otherwise edited like crap. My edition of the Capital had entire pages that were nothing but out-of-context footnotes from God knows which page of the book. Meanwhile, mises.org has pdf's of just about any foundational libertarian work, and some others. Libertyfund has a free online library spanning back into antiquity. Libertarians throw their theories after you, so "I don't buy potentially shitty books" is no excuse unless you're a blazing homosexual.

>>93865

I'm going to thank… you.

>>93832

Okay, just finished reading…

>What's wrong with it? It seems unimpeachable…

Eh.

He spends most of the book debunking a person of straw that no one believes…

<The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service.

No. As far as I can tell, literally no one believes that.

< the rise of democracy

There is none.

<the identification of the State with society has been redoubled,

The US government has a stock 20% approval rating or so, decade after decade. Likely, even less support the occupying state.

…etc. That's just off the first page.

<it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government."

Such sentiments pretty much universally coincide with insurgence against the state and the occupying government, and his conclusion advocates just that.

Et cetera. Then, there is the technical rigor. Formally speaking, the state applies solely to the coercive aspects of a captured monopoly government. The police, prisons, and military are the state. The tax department is NOT the state, but can deploy the state.

Government itself is a bit broader; if you pick up litter in your neighborhood, you are governing its conditions. i.e., socialism, since it is done by the action of the common people without monopoly control over the State.

This makes…

<We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.”

…a steaming pile of horseshit. "Those parts of a criminal occupying government which can deploy the state as its agent and a member of itself," yes. And that's probably what he meant, but again, rigor.

< For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals.

This is largely horseshit, but does explain what he's trying to do. It is not one of the aspects which speaks highly of him.

Meanwhile going back to your claims…

>which would naturally follow that anarcho-capitalism is correct

…not until you surrender ownership of land. Which, incidentally, you just started a thread about a book which, effectively decries this…

<The natural tendency of a State is to expand its power, and externally such expansion takes place by conquest of a territorial area. Unless a territory is stateless or uninhabited, any such expansion involves an inherent conflict of interest between one set of State rulers and another. Only one set of rulers can obtain a monopoly of coercion over any given territorial area at any one time: complete power over a territory by State X can only be obtained by the expulsion of State Y.

So long as one claims sole rulership of clearly defined borders, etc, one is claiming a monopoly on governance and a right to the State and to sole control of the State, rather than the natural case - universal and often-disagreeing governance, and, should things degrade that much, the right and capacity of every person to resort to their own actions as a panarchy of nonterritorial States.

i.e., Rothbard just wrote a book against ancap. :p I suspect like most things, this is an "internet representative versus ideology" phenomenon, but… it still is. Claims to a clearly-defined territory and a State monopoly thereover are all of what makes ancap a far-right authoritarian ideology, as well.

Just to round out the list, his knowledge of Locke is dismal; the labor embodied in the change in form is property, the matter containing this new form, itself, is not. This is 101-tier and Locke's entire contribution, not that it matters much to the premises.

—

…that said, I was hella critical because, well, the opening sentence is "what is wrong with it." As a treatise, it's sort of 'meh' for the reasons described. If I assumed it was a random shitpost by an anon of no particular importance, it would actually be very good.

For disclosure, ansoc commie, anti-M/ML. Kind of amused that his final chapter is LITERALLY "socialism or barbarism." Then again, Rothbard was mostly known for pushing commie theory in Anglo property law terms, so… not terribly surprising.

>>93976

>No. As far as I can tell, literally no one believes that.

Socialists, communists, social democrats, liberals… how do these not see the state as an "institution of social service"? They even put "social" before everything.

< the rise of democracy

>There is none.

Then how come we now live in a world where most governments are either democratic or pretending to be democratic? They did not come from nowhere.

>The US government has a stock 20% approval rating or so, decade after decade. Likely, even less support the occupying state.

That has little if anything to do with Rothbards comment. It's entirely possible for everyone to equate the government with society, and yet to claim they hate the government, because - after all - everyone is also critical of society, too. There is no inconsistency there, at all.

>Et cetera. Then, there is the technical rigor. Formally speaking, the state applies solely to the coercive aspects of a captured monopoly government. The police, prisons, and military are the state. The tax department is NOT the state, but can deploy the state.

How is the tax department not the state? I have never, in over five years of studying law, heard that tax institutions are not a part of the state. Not a single once. So where does your definition of the state and its application come from, and why do you adhere to them?

>Government itself is a bit broader; if you pick up litter in your neighborhood, you are governing its conditions. i.e., socialism, since it is done by the action of the common people without monopoly control over the State.

That is not what government means. The original greek term meant something like "to steer, to direct". You do not direct or steer your neighborhood by picking up litter. In the history of this word, I am not aware that government was ever used the way you use it.

>>93976

>And that's probably what he meant, but again, rigor.

You redefined an established term with no regard for its etymology and for no reason that you cared to share with us. If anyone lacks rigor, it's you.

>This is largely horseshit

Did you ever actually talk to people? Most of them are not freethinkers who methodically research problems (or even know how to do so), and weigh both sides of an issue carefully before passing judgement.

>Just to round out the list, his knowledge of Locke is dismal; the labor embodied in the change in form is property, the matter containing this new form, itself, is not. This is 101-tier and Locke's entire contribution

That was the most pedantic thing I have read entire month.

>ansoc commie

That explains your pedantry, your made up definitions, and lack of historical understanding.

>>93979

>Socialists, communists, social democrats, liberals… how do these not see the state as an "institution of social service"?

Let's see…

>Socialists

…demand the total abolition of a centralized State

>communists

…pretty much just concern themselves with economics, but there's no state involved, by definition.

>liberals

…ended monarchy and tried the whole constitutional republic thing to prevent a state. Minarchism doesn't work historically, but it's kind of the opposite of what you're claiming about them.

>social democrats

…meet billions of those, do you?

>Then how come we now live in a world where most governments are democratic

There's a small amount of the Northeast USA which is democratic. They're governed by town hall meetings without officials or representatives.

Did you mean to say "sham Republic," by any chance?

>everyone (i.e., society) is also critical of society (i.e., themself)

I'm assuming you've got some mental construct where an incarnate spectre named "society" just wanders around independent of the stateless actual society around you?

>You do not direct or steer your neighborhood by picking up litter.

<this is what internet ancaps actually believe.

I, otoh, am pretty sure it steers and directs the amount of litter. But go ahead, tell me how those two things don't connect…

>>93977

>Rothbard was mostly known for pushing commie theory in Anglo property law terms

when you overdose /pol/

>>93980

>You redefined an established term

>You

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuKNhPelllk

TIL that I am an 80 year old black man. Who also wrote wikipedia…

>with no regard for its etymology

…and that room temperature is oppressing me.

>>93984

>the well-documented work with the new left just sort of unhappened from history, because feels.

>>93981

>Socialists

>>…demand the total abolition of a centralized State

>communists

>>…pretty much just concern themselves with economics, but there's no state involved, by definition.

what definitions are you working off of?

socialism is predicated on state power to provide services, same with communism to redistribute wealth

>>93994

>socialism is predicated on state power to provide services, same with communism to redistribute wealth

You appear to be mistaken.

CAPITALISM is predicated on state power to create and envalue a currency by fiat, the ability to distribute that fiat to a selected and chosen few ("the capitalists"), and the ability to create artificial regulatory barriers to exchange through the state to differentiate between those who may buy and sell, and thus gain productive wealth from their ownership of capital goods ("petit capitalists") from those who may not ("the working class," i.e., those who have been assigned to work for the capitalists, petit or greater, by the state).

Socialism, on the other hand, is stateless mutual codetermination without any absentee proprietor or control. My credit union, an example of the mutual-credit banking of Proudhon, is not a state, and in fact the original theory involves stateless forms of money creation backed by mutual credit to existing assets. Similarly, the Diggers were a fairly stateless bunch, as were the pirate democracies which rivaled and opposed the state-created Tea Companies.

Communism, on the other hand, is just open access capital goods as a manufacturing platform. This is a bit more neutral to the presence OR absence of a state, and in fact one of the few constitutionally-allowed functions of the federal government is to maintain infocommunism so that one can, in fact, download a car - the patent office, which might in fact be converted to direct interface with a 3d printer or computer-controlled mill to do exactly that. Conversely, with the basic tenet that no one is excluded from the means of production and people organize themselves, any attempt at state regulation alters whether people have unfettered access to public capital goods, and thus, cannot be communism.

So, I'm afraid you have it backwards, xon.

What's with the influx of leftist scum to this board lately? Didn't /leftypol/ calm its butthurt ass down and fucked off back after its shitty raid? It's like there are 3 leftists for every remotely adequate post.

>>94044

Leftists have always solved problems by throwing bodies at them, anon. Only difference now is that the bodies are ham planets instead of aspiring skeletons.

>>94042

I thought communism was supposed to be the stateless society while Socialism was centralized. Or are we not using the Marx definitions?

>>94050

>Or are we not using the Marx definitions?

I am not, and that…

> while Socialism was centralized.

…is why. Proudhon through the diggers. Marx was run out of the International for that shit, and Bakunin was right.

>>94042

Socialism in america exclusively refers to a generous state-run welfare system

That's what the socialist party says

That's what Bernie Sanders says

That's what Ocasio-cortez says

if you're a social anarchist just clarify that

>>94044

They're not from leftypol, they're cancer from cuckchan since Hiroshima started fucking with it again.

>>94042

>CAPITALISM is predicated on state power

will this meme ever end?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

>>94042

The fundamental nature of capitalism and the ways in which mutualists in the 19th century perceived capitalism to operate are not the same thing. Proudhon is not the be-all end-all of libertarian philosophy.

You play semantics games in order to create conflict with ancaps who only diverge from mutualists in that they believe in the private ownership of land. You accuse them of being

>right wing authoritarians

because they refuse to define themselves using terms that have been thoroughly appropriated by Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist scum.

Either take your head out of your ass or kindly fuck off, you're making mutualism look bad.

>>94535

You're the first Mutualist we've had on here that isn't a complete sperg. Please do stick around.

>>94536

The problem with most mutualists today is that they tend to cling to definitions that were created in a time and place very different from our own.

To seriously claim, in the 21st century, that

<Capitalism is predicated on state power because central banking is somehow an essential feature of free exchange

<Socialism is stateless mutual codetermination because Proudhon said so

<Communism is ONLY open access to the means of production (as if communists hadn't written extensively about the centralized, democratic processes by which said means should be allocated)

is characteristic of pedantic, shallow and ideologically possessed fools who are still furious that Marxists co-opted their precious labels.

And it's a bloody shame, because voluntarism needs to include mutualism or it becomes too uncritical in its application of property as the solution to complex problems.

>>94537

>To seriously claim that things mean what they have always meant is PEDANTIC!

Great. Capitalism is now when you stick your thumb up your butt.

>>94557

You add nothing to the discussion by making shallow comments about semantics.

Ancaps (and most people for the last 200+ years) define capitalism as a system where property rights emerge as a consequence of the ownership of one's self, with labour, homesteading and free trade as the means by which property is established. When you barge into the discussion, saying things like

>CAPITALISM is predicated on state power to create and envalue a currency by fiat, the ability to distribute that fiat to a selected and chosen few ("the capitalists"), and the ability to create artificial regulatory barriers to exchange through the state to differentiate between those who may buy and sell, and thus gain productive wealth from their ownership of capital goods ("petit capitalists") from those who may not ("the working class," i.e., those who have been assigned to work for the capitalists, petit or greater, by the state)

All you are doing is erecting a strawman and then smugly chastising people for not using your superior definition.

I would not, if I decided for some unfathomable reason to visit leftypol, try to claim that PROPERTY and POSSESSION are the correct categories as opposed to PRIVATE and PERSONAL PROPERTY.

>>94638

>All you are doing is erecting a strawman and then smugly chastising people for not using your superior definition.

<Actually, real capitalism has never been tried!

…and you also go on to state…

>You add nothing to the discussion by making shallow comments about semantics.

…so, I guess the arbitrary person you're quoting from a thread is… right.

Which is it? Make up your mind? And can you possibly percieve that there are other folks you should be bitching at, or does it fall into the same part of your brain that lets you propose "words shouldn't mean anything" and "we have to use my special snowflake definition" AT THE SAME TIME?!?!

I actually have no problems with using special snowflake definitions, but you sure as fuck cannot have it both ways, jump back and forth, et cetera, et cetera. Clean your own fucking house, such as whatever let you post "semantics are lame/this entire post is about semantics" as a single post.

>>94671

Real capitalism has always been tried and is how the real world works, you just like pointing out the examples with state interference and ignore all the rest. Of course, that's what the state wants since it also operates by hijacking language itself to give some words meanings that benefits them. It's all part of the subversion.

>>94684

>Real capitalism has always been tried and is how the real world works

Okay, then you're back to the state printing up useless slips of paper and handing it out to its chosen cronies while locking all others out through regulatory capture. Also, a slavery scheme.

Whenever you pick ONE story. It's this bouncing-back-and-forth between a couple dozen completely-contradictory things you WANT to be true that just doesn't float.

>>94687

I guess it all boils down to who you want to believe. If you want to believe people that tell you 2+2 is 5 just because they're in greater number, then that's your choice.

>>94691

Pretty much. And here I've got someone trying to sell me a story which isn't even consistent internally, without even checking externally.

Kinda questionable.

>>94696

I'm not even trying to "sell you a story" so much as I'm trying to tell you you're working on a subverted definition of what capitalism is. Capitalism is based on free market, and the state is a parasite whose interference corrupts it into something else. I wonder if you'd argue that if a body survives despite a parasite leeching off of it, then the parasite is actually a legitimate part of that body, or something equally absurd, because that's pretty much the argument you're making.

>>94700

>I'm not even trying to "sell you a story" so much as I'm trying to tell you you're working on a subverted definition of what capitalism is

…and that's perfectly fine, but it puts you back at "capitalism has never been tried." As well as every other burden that comes of this - that attempts thereat tend to end in… something else.

If you want to accept that, fine, that's great. You've gotten somewhere. If you want to bounce out of it again, you're… back to flipping up your story when it's convenient.

Incidentally…

>Capitalism is based on free market

…I'm kind of worried about the total absence of capital goods in your definitions here - "market chaote" might be a better term - but that's waaaaayyy down the road.

Stick with it, despite the implications, or find something you do stick with. If "capitalism" is "what's going on now," you get… what's going on now. If "capitalism" is something that's never been tried, well, it's never been tried. That's fine, but nothing's going anywhere until you pick one story and stick to it, preferably based on long thought and finding something you can stick to regardless of the implications.

>>94701

Seeing as how you conveniently ignore half my posts, there's no point to this.

>>94704

Well, that's a new tactic; avoidance.

>>94671

><Actually, real capitalism has never been tried!

Once again, you're making a strawman (and projecting, too; no libertarian ever says capitalism has never been tried).

The current dominant productive model is mostly capitalist. The state interferes in the economy. The degree to which the state interferes in the economy is the degree to which the productive model deviates from capitalism.

>Which is it? Make up your mind? And can you possibly percieve that there are other folks you should be bitching at, or does it fall into the same part of your brain that lets you propose "words shouldn't mean anything" and "we have to use my special snowflake definition" AT THE SAME TIME?!?!

Histrionics wont help get your point across. Who should I "be bitching at"? When did I say words mean nothing? My "special snowflake definition" is commonly accepted enough to be the one used by Wikipedia:

>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[6][7]

Why did you refuse to abide by this definition? Why would you, knowing that /liberty/ uses this definition, choose to make a vapid post that amounts to nothing more than "um akshually"?

You could make an argument that state power is necessary to maintain capitalism. Its certainly nothing /liberty/ hasn't heard before, but it would be more substantial than your current output.

>>94701

>it puts you back at "capitalism has never been tried."

You're assuming capitalism is a totalitarian socioeconomic order that only truly exists when it is the only thing that exists.

This is a Marxian concept which doesn't stand up to reality. Capitalism has taken place and takes place in a huge variety of societies and to different extents.

>market chaote

>chaote

I certainly hope you don't mean "chaote" as in "the occult magick thing". If you meant chaos, you should know that's a bit of a loaded word followers of Proudhon would do best to avoid.

>If "capitalism" is "what's going on now," you get… what's going on now.

>If "capitalism" is something that's never been tried, well, it's never been tried.at about

Why the dichotomy? Is the People's Republic of China socialist or capitalist? What about the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam? Are mixed economies not a thing?

>>94707

>no libertarian ever says capitalism has never been tried

Funny; when combined with "it wasn't real capitalism," there's a lot of that in this very thread.

The other wings of libertarianism just note that, yes, that is real capitalism by design.

>The current dominant productive model is mostly capitalist

…great, then you're back to "capitalism is when the state does stuff."

>The degree to which the state interferes in the economy is the degree to which the productive model deviates from capitalism.

Okay. So, that's about a hundred percent. But, you said the current model is mostly capitalist.

So, again, we're at a "pick one" moment.

>You could make an argument that state power is necessary to maintain capitalism. Its certainly nothing /liberty/ hasn't heard before, but it would be more substantial than your current output.

My current output is identical, except for observing that it goes WAAAYY beyond state power being, well, necessary. IF the current mode is mostly capitalist, THEN capitalism is a state action.

>You're assuming capitalism is a totalitarian socioeconomic order

That possibility is why I'm willing to accept the "capitalism is when the state does stuff" answer. No one will stick to ONE answer, though.

>Capitalism has taken place and takes place in a huge variety of societies and to different extents.

…seconds later, 100% of that "wasn't real capitalism." Depends on where you are on this "is/is not a state action" schrödinger's waffling game.

> If you meant chaos, you should know that's a bit of a loaded word followers of Proudhon would do best to avoid.

thatsthepoint.jpg. I'm guessing this "free" market is going to undergo a wee bit of waffling as much as whether capitalism is entirely a system of state action.

>Why the dichotomy? Is the People's Republic of China socialist or capitalist? What about the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam? Are mixed economies not a thing?

Heck, why not go to the USSR? Let's check that definition you posted.

>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

Check.

>Characteristics central to capitalism include private property,

Yup.

>capital accumulation,

Yup.

>wage labor,

Yup.

>voluntary exchange,

Yup.

>a price system,

Yup.

>and competitive markets.

Yup.

> In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets,

Yes, though there was only one.

>whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

Yup.

So, we have an answer. The USSR was, in fact, real capitalism.

>>94716

You keep talking as if capitalism is a political arrange like democracy, republic or communism. It's not.

The word "capitalism" has two big definitions, but one of them is false.

The real one you already have, its basically an economic system that works based on voluntary trade between legitimate private propety owners. It necessarily assumes that the right to private property is true, therefore it is completely incompatible with the state, whose existence necessarily contradicts that very right by relativizing it (you only have private property to the extent that the state lets you, the rest is confiscated/stolen through taxes)

The false one is the one the left (primarily) pushes, which says that corporations allying themselves with the state to form oligopolies is "capitalism", which it's not; There's a word for that and it's called corporatism (or corporativism). Subversion starts with language.

Also, as has been said before, capitalism is not a binary state; people will always create wealth through voluntary trades and respect of private property, then the parasite "state" comes in to violently leech off that wealth.

Statists will try to argue that the state is part of capitalism and therefore normal, or that it's not and capitalism is a villain to be fought, changing between the two when it suits their specific narrative at the time.

Private property and the state are inherently contradictory and incompatible; private property is the only Law that is universally appliable for the resolution of conflict between humans over scarce resources. For the state to exist it necessarily needs to invalidate (by force) private property at some level; at which level it does that just varies by place. That's all there is to it.

>>94716

Now you're lying for the sake of edgy contrarianism.

Either that or you are genuinely very stupid and confused.

>>94717 said all that needed to be said.

Ooh! All three shitposting flags at once!

I'll start with the fluffiest moron.

>>94717

>taking your own grain back and being a landlord isn't private property!

Great. So, what's going on now isn't "real capitalism!"

>capital accumulation

>No, there wasn't.

<no factories or anything else were built, they just sat around in the early 1900s.

I… honestly believe you believe that.

>voluntary exchange

>Not really.

<The USSR simply MADE countries and buyers outside their property buy their product!

…any tips on how that happened?

>competitive markets.

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

<also, people outside the eastern bloc had no options to buy anything not made by Russia.

Again… wanna explain this fantasy?

>You just admitted there was only one owner in the market, retard. By definition there can't be competition in that scenario.

<The property owner also owns everything outside their property.

Gee, you keep harping this one, but you never back it up. That's the thing; you make physically-impossible claims and NEVER BACK THEM UP.

Outside the private property of Lenin, then Stalin, there was no influence. All trade was in a competitive market. Within their private property, they were free to dispose of it how they wished by capitalist theory - it's their property.

So, what… you're going to bitch that the owner was too rich now? Or are you going to continue to fantasize about how, say, Canada or Iran or whatever the hell was outside the eastern bloc were somehow also Lenin's property and personally micromanaged by him, like you've been doing this whole post?

Just a capitalist property owner, disposing of their property as they will… and enjoying a competitive international market.

>>94718

>You keep talking as if capitalism is a political arrange like democracy, republic or communism. It's not.

It is, though; you said it yourself…

>legitimate private propety owners.

…this is a question of "who rules." It's particularly aggregious when it gets, you know, land borders, especially sizeable ones.

As an interesting note, MOST of the world doesn't do that "land borders" thing; even after conflict, all of the island of scotland, the fennoscandinavian countries, the germanic countries, the baltic countries, etc consider free reign of the land to be everyone's right.

It's… just a narrow patch of illegal immigrants in southern Scotland; the original group has folded that part of the war. And as such, it was pretty much attained, you know, by robbing people.

>political arrange like democracy, republic or communism.

Communism, otoh, isn't; you can have monarchist communism, capitalist communism, socialist communism, panarchist communism. Historically, communism under the capitalist property model is most common; "these are those of my capital goods which I designate that everyone can use."

>The false one is the one the left (primarily) pushes, which says that corporations allying themselves with the state to form oligopolies is "capitalism", which it's not

Again; I'm fine with that, but you're back to "capitalism has never been tried."

Corruption-for-lucre is as old as systems capable of supporting it. Which, apparently, is the foul corruption of cities in the ancient mediterranean; anti-civ makes some good points, and as long as the structure SUPPORTS these things, you will GET these things. Meanwhile, standards drafted on gold, or agricultural output, or the historical socialist model of mutual-credit formation ("liberty dollars," for instance)… are gone. The government just prints worthless paper and hands it out to the folks it wants to put in charge of you - and any discussion on a beautiful utopia of voluntary exchange will have to take that into account, just as much as it has to take the sheer age of corruption-for-lucre into account.

>There's a word for that and it's called corporatism

Have you considered looking a little older? Check out what "banal rights" actually are. They arise in feudalism and involve rent-seeking by non-cooperation on the lord's own property.

Under the statist theory, that corruption is, actually, legitimate capitalism by your definition; you're temporarily using the state's property. And of course they have a right to appoint whatever managers they want.

You… may have to start asking more questions.

>>94745

>…this is a question of "who rules."

No, it's not. Unless you believe that "might makes right", in that case you're just another criminal enabler.

>you're temporarily using the state's property

The state can have no legitimate property. It just steals property from others by the use of force, therefore it has no legitimacy in any shape or form.

All your arguments are based on the false premise that property can be legitimately acquired by stealing, so you'd better address that if you want to be taken seriously.

>>94776

>No, it's not. Unless you believe that "might makes right"

I don't. I do believe it makes rulership.

>All your arguments are based on the false premise that property can be legitimately acquired by stealing, so you'd better address that if you want to be taken seriously.

Okay. Are you prepared for a world in which land cannot be owned? Because the Enclosures are a uniquely-Anglo property model which has ONLY come about in history through overt theft. It was then generally used as a base from which to extort people fiscally; Smith writes a bit about this…

…so everything you know about property is about to be overturned, here.

>>94784

Don't you know what the word "legitimately" means?

>>94785

I do, which brings us back to probably both being the current holders of a lot of illegitimate non-property - and throws into question any further property based on that.

>>94745

>Communism, otoh, isn't; you can have monarchist communism, capitalist communism, socialist communism, panarchist communism. Historically, communism under the capitalist property model is most common; "these are those of my capital goods which I designate that everyone can use."

What are you doing here, you god awful obnoxious faggot?

>>94786

Alright, but you can't change the past or give compensation to dead people. The only thing that can be done is stop commiting the same errors from now on. Or what, you want to kill all 7 billion people in the planet right now for something their ancestors did to each other?