You are saying two different things at once. In one hand you are saying property did not exist prior to the state (false). But then you redefine property into "actual capitalist property such as absentee land ownership." You claim that it couldn't exist without governments but this is an unsupported assertion.
It didn't exist prior to the state ... read the book 5000 years of debt, anthropologists will tell you, that property came with the state.
Its asserted and supported with evidence (history) and common sense, if I say "this plot of land is mine" that statement is MEANINGLESS unless there is a coercive state to enforce it.
Not true on any accounts. Sure you can leave the country, I guess that is a solution. But how is that a better option than what you have available in private life? It isn't, and you are just being unreasonable.
Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society - YouTube
Yeah, you can leave the country, if you don't want to follow the rules of a given society or community, you can piss off .... which is, I take it, the EXACT same argument you'd give to a worker who wants to unionize and take control of his workplace, youd say "just quit and find another job."
We should take this debate to economics or something, because it's not really appropriate here for "religion," as far as the video, make another thread and I'll respond.
1. Exactly, which is why it doesn't make any sense to give the government more power.
2. Now you are just repeating yourself and not listening to a word I'm saying. You haven't addressed my argument in any way, you simply repeated what you stated previously.
3. False, free trade exists independently of the state, as Somalia demonstrates.
4. How would you propose getting rid of freedom (people freely trading with one another)? I'd like to see a detailed, thorough analysis of the subject.
1. Who said I want to give the government more power?
2. You didn't make an argument, boycotts don't work, due to problems like game theory, enpoverization of people (they NEED certain things), the fact that the Capitalists hold the capital and thus you don't have real options, also boycots require that everyone rally around a certain cause that may or may not effect them, take for example a factory that pollutes, the people effected are the people in the town, but if the factory produces yacts for people in Manhatten, a "yact" boycott in the town won't make a difference AT ALL to the problem.
3. Go to Somalia ... hell try invest in Somalia ... Also Somalia is a perfect example, get rid of a civil accountable state, and what you ahve is private states, warlords and the such, THAT is what ends up happening.
4. If Somalia is your idea of freedom I don't know what to tell you ... Here is what I propose ... a simple principle, if you have to live with the results of an action, you should have a say in the decision of it ... It's basic democratic principles, and it should apply to the economy.
I want to give all the power to the people, and none to the state. All the people are capitalists, because everyone by definition engages in trade.
A capitalist is someone who controls capital ... not someone who trades ... Also you want to give the power to the RICH people ... what you want is one dollar one vote, infact more than that, you're power is in what capital you control, not one person one vote.
Which is nonsense, because capitalist property CANNOT EXIST without a state.
1. Which is why your theory falls apart.
2. Completely false. That makes zero sense, absolutely zero sense. No rational person could have derived that conclusion from what I said.
3. You just keep repeating thoroughly debunked arguments and refuse to address actual arguments that have been made. This is silly.
Property is not "coercion," it's an extension of freedom. In the same way you might say "this is MY body and I have the right to defend it" you also have the right to defend things that you've created, like your home, or the fruits of your labor. If I labor all day in my farm and grow 100 tomatoes are you seriously gonna argue that you have a right to eat my tomatoes? Yes, they are MINE. This is the fairest system. Nobody has a more legitimate claim to these tomatoes than me. It's not perfect, but it is the fairest system.
No, it does not require a state to enforce and I've already demonstrated why.
Property is not arbitrary, state power is. What is more arbitrary, me deciding how to use the tomatoes or you?
Start a thread somewhere else so we can continue this discussion ... This is not about religion.
1. Arguing that is like using pinto as an example to show that cars are bad .... it's rediculous.
2. Yeah it is, it's perfectly rational, they control the financial sector, the only thing between them and running amuk is the regulatory system, if yo uget rid of the regulatory system but NOT the financial companies, then guess what .. they run the ****.
3. Where have you "debunked" that ... So far you havn't even addressed that self-evident fact.
What you just argued about, i.e. the tomatoes is not a property argument, you don't need property laws, at least capitalist property laws to pick and eat tomatoes, you need them to say you own a patch of land, and make people pick the tomatoes for you and tell them "I OWN all the tomatoes YOU pick because, this batch of land is mine (arbitrarily), so I get the tomatoes, and you get a tiny wage, and guess what, you'll do it, because all the tomatoe growing land around here I own." THAT'S what capitalist property is, you cna build and live in a home, or pick tomatoes without property at all, and it's been done for centuries before capitalism.
Where have you demonstrated you don't need a state?
Start a new thread and send me the link.
