/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11961433
That the state requires violence to exist is the most banal observation you can get. No fucking shit.

The marxist understanding of the state is exactly premised on seeing it as first and foremost a group of armed individuals. What makes a state different from just run of the mill violence to get what you want is that it creates laws. It's not that these laws are legitimate in any way other than ideology, but rather that this is a large part of what it does. No matter what kind of government, no matter if it's a dictatorship or a parliamentary system, the state creates laws. The purpose of these laws is very simple. The logic of the state is not just to have the most violence around in absolute terms, but relative terms. It must maximize it's own violence while minimizing those who might oppose it. And it can through this through the ideological effect of laws.

The bourgeoisie, the one we currently live under, is founded upon certain ideological principles as a result. It must protect private property, it must take taxes, it must maintain it's territory.

As for property rights, what you described in pre-history is personal property, that is not a property right, it is a simple fact. A fait accompli. It is inherently amoral, in the sense that it is not ethical or unethical, it simple is.

Money, it should be noted, in tribal systems, was not used to buy and sell things. Rather, it was used as a status symbol, to pay moral/legal/customary debts, and to give as a gift. Here's a book on the topic for your edification. https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf

It's hilarious that you bring up the dunning-kruger effect given that your arguments are just rehashed bits of popular ideology and culture.