/lit/ - Literature

>>15383832
It's true. There's a reason why 'monopoly on violence' lies with the state in most nations.

>>15383832
Violence and the threat of violence is an adhesive towards ultimate authority, it is not authority in and of itself.

>>15383855
Then, what comes before authority? What core tenent builds authority in the first place?

>>15383866
ontologically it would be survival

>>15383882
Survival requires violence, wether it is physical, verbal or non-verbal to be enforced, anon.

>>15383896
>yes.gif
The Will to Power

>>15383832
Can confirm. Want to overthrow your local government? Too bad, they have all the weapons.
Dear ameribros, don't let anyone take away your second amendment.

>>15383839
>most

>>15383913
>>15383896
define violence

>>15383928
Extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause damage.

>>15383925
American gun culture takes away that monopoly in practice.

>>15383928
Actions done to someone with no regard for their wellbeing. Use of force for personal gain. In a sense, just as hunting deer is a form of violence, so too picking berries is a form of violence.

>>15383832
This rubric treats authority as a species of power. This is a common attitude in today’s world, but have you ever stopped to think if this might be the cause of a number of our now obvious problems?

>>15383957
Excuse my dumb brain, but I didn't understand your proposition. Would you mind rephraising it?

>>15383975
I think that treating authority as a species of power is an error that is more or less accepted without question in today’s world, and that this error is at the root of a lot of problems that are impossible not to notice.

>>15383832
its just the plain truth. you only going to see poor little excuses and justifications. not a direct answer.
>people dont want to know his style of life ultimately rely on violence

>>15383988
>is an error
but why is an error?.

>>15383988
But isn't authority the purest expression of might? If a subject didn't possess power, he would not be able to express said power thru might, and might thru authority.

>>15383954
>>15383941
Your way to defining violence is not concurrent with the claim that it is the ultimate form of authority. Authority is a dynamic structure of which other anthropological phenomenon bleed into; the idea that violence is the ultimate form of authority is really that violence is the ultimate proxy defending authority. Authority is derived from a multitude of different systems that depends on the group.

>>15383988
>I think that treating authority as a species of power is an error
But isn't it power? If someone believes and follows your authority, then you have power over them

Well yes, everyone who's read their Schmitt, Sorel, Walter Benjamin, etc. knows this

>>15384010
>authority
>presence
>impact
Aren't all of those expressions of violence, whether it is physical, verbal, or non-verbal?

>>15384038
Authority isn't violence itself, but rather that which makes violence perceived as justifiable, or otherwise violence is that which justifies authority. Presence and impact are merely characteristics through which authority is conveyed.

>>15384038
You forgot trust, and what the template doesn't mention is that trust-based structures such as tribes and packs prevent violence escalation and directly leads to the formation of authority which dispels the claim that authority is derivative of violence.

>>15384060
The implied possible violence of a policing body or standing professional military falls under presence, doesn't it?

>>15384063
From the point in which I defend, trust can be just the perceived knowledge that violence won't be inflicted upon you if you trust what the leader/s tell you to do. Trust leades to hierarchy-based societies, and said hierarchy is enforced thru might.

>>15384092
leads*

>>15383832
>the novel was satire
What pill is this? Did your mother take thalidomide while pregnant?

>>15384092
yeah I was almost certain that you were going to make the argument that trust is based on prevention of violence, which it is not most of the time. Trust is a primordial instinct that you place on a figure for survival, its axiomatic manifestations have different ways of revealing itself such as trust in government for livelihood or trust in a lord of serf-hood, the list goes on. You are confusing trust with fear and those couldn't be more different from each other.

>>15383998
>>15384001
The root of the word authority (auctoritas) is augere, which means to grow, or to raise. It implies the existence of a transcendent ideal towards which I am guided, evidence of I can grasp, and so involves an interior, and therefore more radical submission than that which is involved in mere power (potestas), whose mechanism is totally exterior.
The denial of the auctoritas-potestas distinction emerges out of a process of negation in Western thought that begins in the early modern period (ideals are not decidable, cannot be evidenced) and reached more radical expression in late-modernity (ideals are masks for power).
And yet we are confronted with the obviousness of the failure of this process, as we experience, for example, alienation, which implies the existence of a transcendent and normative nature from which we have fallen.

>>15383832
The novel isnt satire, nor is it about a facist regime

>>15383920
>Imma shoot down that predator drone with my mosin nagant

>>15384228
>in mere power (potestas) whose mechanism is totally exterior.
but the threat of violence is an interior mechanism.

>>15384600
Exactly wrong. Once the threat was gone I would no longer submit. It is entirely exterior.

>>15383832
Read Girard and de Maistre.

>>15383925
>go to Sicily
>go to southern Philippines
>go to Mexico
>etc
Yeah, most.

>>15383920
>I am an untrained US Citizen, and I can buttfuck that Abrams with my citizen-friendly version of a M4A1
>What's that? BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT?

>>15384552
>>15384877
>t. noguns eurotrash

>>15383832
That's not true, you can't beat logic up and even if you limit it to man, if you have a tiny stick and I have a force field, your violence means nothing and technology would be better deserving. I don't set it there but that's one contradiction

>>15384552
le vietnam face

>>15384552
>>15384877

You can shoot down and Apache helicopter with small arms. You cannot enforce a police state with A-10s and Abrams.

>You should give up your guns roll over and accept an hypothetically oppressive regime that would deploy military grade equipment on civilians!

Such odd argument.

>>15385032
your forcefield is literally a way to prevent violence. You're just reinforcing op's point that the monopoly on violence is what matters most

>>15385055
It's just barrel envy

>>15383832
>Submitting to violence
Lol no. Authority is the consent of the governed. You ain't got that, you ain't got power.

>>15385055
they're just totalitarian dickwads who despise the idea of the common people having any power

>>15384552
>>15384877
>third-world farmer with a rusty AK-47 and home-made bombs joined the chat

>>15385057
Sometimes it's so derivative of protecting that it's not even a point. If the force field was simply a wall to segregate land plots or was a weather incubator then violence is very derivative. Also you can't beat each other to decide which math the universe will make intrinsic to reality. There's no universal tournament that can do that. So violence is not ultimate

>>15383832
Civilization is just a big con game of training people to habitually work and reproduce for their rulers with various delusions and the violence is for when people ignore the delusion for one reason or another. The real flashpoint of violence is the suppression and battering of the self through social engineering, the police and armies are just insurance.

>>15385115
Protecting is entirely the point. EIther you can protect yourself from violence or you can't, do you really not see this? Why did you even choose a forcefield, specifically because it protects you from violence.

>>15385161
I mean protecting/attacking is derivative. If I have sex or relationship with a woman it's not within that paradigm so it necessarily can't be ultimate. I would place them both as derivative of affection or general passion

>>15385100
>common people having power
>he actually believes they do
Lmao

>>15385173
They don't have much, I'm well aware. I'm referring to how gleeful 'leftists' are about disarming the workers and laughing at their lack of power.

>>15384552
>blow up the fuel depot that fuels the drone
>drone can't deploy

>blow up the intelligence apparatus that feeds targets to the drone
>sits on the tarmac

>jam the drone
>useless

>convince the drone operators to join your team
>free drone

>go get a stinger from your local base that has been captured / turned coat / been abandoned
>shoot drone

>put hole in runway
>no drone

every single piece of military equipment has 20 million dependencies, all of which are vulnerable to small arms you idiot.

>>15383954
>American gun culture takes away that monopoly in practice.
LOL

>>15383832

That is true in a trivial sense, in the same way as saying food is the foundation of jazz music.

I would say that production has authority over violence. When resources are scarce, violence erupts. When resources are plentiful, there is less violence.

Take Venezuela for instance. When oil was expensive, the country was rich and was considered one of the best in South America. When the price of oil came down, the country collapsed and violence blew up. The violence in the country was predicated by the revenue they were able to bring in because of oil.

Just taking a glance at the world, it's obvious that poverty correlates with violence. I would argue that it's the poverty which creates the violence, not the other way around.

>>15383954
>American gun culture takes away that monopoly in practice.
Ruby ridge, Waco, MOVE bombing. All it takes is the scent of armed resistance to bring the hammer down on civilians. The only ones that can get threatened into compliance by armed civilians are cops. I don't understand why leftists are so anti-gun when the only successful means of leftists protecting themselves was through armed copwatches and armed neighborhood patrols.

>>15385361
Not even, when your body tells you you need to pee do you have to assault it to make it pee? Violence has nothing to do w biological authority and many deaths are painless and without warning entirely

>>15384678
imagine you dont rob a fruit because you dont want to go to jail.
the threat of violence is an internalized sentiment.

the people who think "i dont rob a fruit because im a civilized person" are not the problem. they promote and need the authoritarianism. they dont understand they need the violence only when the "bad apple" emerge. and because of that, while they dont see "the bad apple" in themselves they are content with his civilized and happy and well balanced place. authoritarian or not.

>from an objective standpoint[...]

Please do not say this ever again.

>>15385517
pseud

>>15385469
btzzz, wrong. There is less violence in Uganda than in Mexico, even when the GDP per capita is several times larger in the later. Same scenario applies to Detroit and basically anywhere else in the world. But you are totally right in the first part
> When resources are scarce, violence erupts
It is the perceived inequality in the resource assignations which generates violence, not the material amount of said resources.

>>15383832
It is simply the way of things.
>Except for a few special cases title to every parcel of real property derives from an act of violence, more or less remote, and ownership is only as valid as the strength and will required to maintain it. This is the lesson of history, whether you like it or not.

>>15385533
>marx btfo

>>15385542
Stop ontologizing violence and then conflating the two back again. What is this ontology of violence that owning a property proposes?

>>15383954
No, all it does is expand it to those with the time and resources to arm themselves

>>15385542
Love can also be used to maintain property. I love my mother and would not attempt to steal anything from her.

>>15383832
>I know both the novel
Apparently you fucking don't
>It also became enormously controversial because of the political views it seemed to support. Reviewers were strongly critical of the book's intentional glorification of the military,[14][15] an aspect described as propaganda and likened to recruitment.[16] The ideology of militarism and the fact that only military veterans had the right to vote in the novel's fictional society led to it being frequently described as fascist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

>>15385552
everything is free. the fact that you stand in a place and say "this is mine" is violent in itself.

>>15385566
How does violence connect to 'taking space'? And how do you fit personal space within this 'ontology of violence'?

>>15383920
americans have all the guns they can buy and they're too chickenshit to use them, except for a handful who end up shooting up a McDonald's and/or killing themselves

>>15385509
This is typical of the dead end of Western rationalism, which always amounts to a denial of reason, and the affirmation of violence.
The formula goes as follows: you do not think x because of the reasons you gave, but because you have y, where y is some pathology like internalized oppression, or false consciousness, or some phobia, or you have privilege, or sexual frustration, or you are white or black or a Jew or etc.
The failure of this way of thinking is evident in the various attributes of the ongoing crisis of modernity: alienation, anomie, dehumanization, deracination, consumerism, neo-totalitarianism, fixation on trivialities, dissipation, etc.

>>15385533
That's probably true, but I think there should be a balance between redistribution (taxes) and free enterprise. When governments operate something, they generally do it poorly e.g. more expensive, less efficient, etc. Venezuela is another example of this b/c their government did a pretty poor job of operating their oil industry.

>>15385610
what exactly is your point?. that the power dont need violence?. that everyone magically accept one authority or one power in a natural way?. . what is exactly the point?. im talking in good faith. i dont understand you very well.

>>15385583
i dont know if its an ontology. its simple. you need violence to have something in first place. violence over the environment and sometimes over the people in order to maintain it.

>>15385715
That's ontologizing violence because violence is particularly defined, you're making it abstract

>>15385827
You pseuds need to stop abusing the term "ontology". It's a red flag.

>>15385846
How so also what makes it a red flag and what would you call the form in which he universalized violence instead of ontologizing it?

>>15385827
Not that guy, but what is your point as well? Are you trying to say treating anything as an universal is wrong?

There are exceptions to this law, however: the first the guilt, which is independent from punishment, the second is social norms and pressures, which do not usually results in violence in case of failure.

>>15385873
No, I'm saying it's okay but what makes him universalizing violence make owning property violent. I'm open to getting the essential or analytic definition of violence and applying it as a metaphysics but if you do then rape is permissible if private property is violent. I'm just following up for his treatment on the individual, rape and reconciliation of all this w his first statement on property

>>15385696
If you were talking in good faith then I misunderstood you.
I thought you were saying that my submission to the law which says that I am not to steal is not because this law conforms to an evident ideal in which I would like to participate, but because I have internalized oppression and fear of violence. If this is not what you meant, then I misread you.
My point is that idea that violence is the basis of authority, I.e., that authority is just a species of raw power, is a mistake, and that we can straightforwardly observe the failure of this way of thinking in the various problems that characterize modernity.
It is essentially the difference between a Catholic perspective (that order is a natural human good, and violence is a violation of this order), and a modern one (order is maintained through violence, and this is good or bad depending on whether you are the one doing the violence or receiving it).
Here is an essay by Augusto Del Noce explaining more.
https://delnoceinenglish.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/authority1975.pdf

>>15385890
Not him, but I would say private property is exactly as 'violent' as theft. Which, in my opinion, is not violent at all. But I see the point his is trying to make.

>>15385958
Yeah, he made a metaphysical claim I encounter a lot, I wanted to understand it outside sophistry

>>15385965
Well, legal definitions of "violent crime" vary. But usually just the threat of assault is enough to qualify:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

So in that sense, yes, private property is inherently violent.

>>15384552
>>15384877
The GWOT is all but forgotten now I see.

>>15386005
No it's not crime, which is something different entirely, it's an 'act of violence'. Violence is intent to hurt coupled with actually hurting someone. Many pacifists own land, so he's proposing a metaphysics based on the analytic definition of violence without naming that term.

>>15386078
>Many pacifists own land
How can you "own" land without a threat of violence to back up your claim?

>>15385948
no, you dont misunderstood me entirely. i dont know what are the problems of modernity. in that part i miss your point.
i think one of the problems is look at violence as something wrong, bad, or unnatural. its just the way it is. you need violence or the threat of violence over someone to maintain some uniform status quo.
>not because this law conforms to an evident ideal
ok. i accept that. my point is not that every guy who follows an order is a brainwashed npc. but that, in order to maintain that order who, lets say, 60, 70 percent of population agree voluntarily. you need some kind of violence to calm the other 30 % who dont follow the orders naturally and voluntarily.

>>15386153
By literally nobody else being there? By trading? Not everyone is a psychopath anon. I don't need violence to prevent me from raping ppl

>>15386153
Also I used personal space as an example, so not letting ppl rape you is akin to preventing violence by your account

>>15386307
>By literally nobody else being there?
Then you wouldn't even need the concept of "ownership". A Robinson Crusoe doesn't need to worry about property rights.

>By trading?
Trading presupposes the existence of property rights. Otherwise you could simply take what you want -- no need for exchange.

>Not everyone is a psychopath anon. I don't need violence to prevent me from raping ppl
Not sure what that has to do with anything.

>>15383954
>American gun culture takes away that monopoly in practice.
the absolute fucking state of you

militarisation of police > armed militia

>>15386344
If trading presupposes property rights then you can't beg the question by saying property is violent. I trade for things all the time and I particularly want to trade. I don't want to learn how to build a smartphone and a car and a satellite etc. There's no violence

>>15386350
americans legally shoot each other in self defense quite often, and it has a deterrent effect as well

>>15384552

>>15386370
Do you have any actual argument? Property rights are meaningless unless enforced by the threat of violence -- whether by the State, or (in the ancap utopia) by some other third party powerful enough to end disputes definitely.

>>15386370
There's no violence because you have reduced the scope of everything that supports your hability or right to trade.

>>15386438
In that sense literally everything is enforced by the threat of violence.
>you have to threaten violence to prevent people from stealing from you
>you have to threaten violence to prevent people from beating you up
>you have to threaten violence to prevent yourself being raped
etc.

>>15386438
Again, this would presuppose communes impossible. It's self defeating, if property is necessarily violent then we can't own anything for even a second. You can't own your body

>>15386390
You only need to glass a certain percentage of offenders before people internalize the point that defying the government means death.

>>15386459
I don't think so, I think assuming everything is violent is reductionist. On the whole scale of things in terms of property, it's rarely violent. It's very rare when property causes violence

>>15386476
In fact if I can amend that, property literally never causes violence so you can't use property anyways

>>15386460
>you have to threaten violence to prevent people from stealing from you
Huh? Stealing just means violating another person's property rights.

>you have to threaten violence to prevent people from beating you up
>you have to threaten violence to prevent yourself being raped
Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with property rights. Violating someone's bodily autonomy is certainly violence by any definition.

>>15386344
>Then you wouldn't even need the concept of "ownership". A Robinson Crusoe doesn't need to worry about property rights.
What about defense against animals? Basically the same idea as defense against humans.

>Trading presupposes the existence of property rights. Otherwise you could simply take what you want -- no need for exchange.
Trading actually brings more benefit than simple violence though. A band of thugs stealing goods provides no benefit. Trading not only benefits both parties, but both parties also have an interest in keeping the relationship good so trade can continue.

>Not sure what that has to do with anything.
I think he's saying people with the same worldview such as religion aren't motivated by fear but by love.
The Tao Te Ching says this about it
>In the highest antiquity, (the people) did not know that there were (their rulers). In the next age they loved them and praised them. In the next they feared them; in the next they despised them.

>>15386476
The society that allows you to trade did so by subjugating other societies and imposing its own authority, the right to property is protected with violence

>>15386460
if someone want to rape you, only violence gonna back up that guy. we are not saying you dont rape because you are afraid of violence. (maybe, only you know that)
but that the violence or threat of violence is the ultimate thing that frustrate a rapist.

>>15386465
Tell that to the Viet Cong.

>>15386486
It's the same logic dude. You have an apple, you have to defend it with violence. You have to defend your body with violence too.

>>15386510
That's not necessarily true, for instance a virtual world can guarantee your avatar private property without violence.

>>15386492
>What about defense against animals?
"Defense" is a much broader concept. Defending a food supply, for example, means protecting its physical integrity against the elements. Nonhuman animals do not participate in contracts, so they are not expected to acknowledge any of our civil or property rights.

>Trading actually brings more benefit than simple violence though.
I don't disagree. Trading is a more advanced form of behavior than vulgar plundering, but it is still ultimately anchored in violence.

>>15386537
No the point is they're saying private property is violence. Your body is your own property by definition. So his logic makes it so you must allow yourself to be raped to prevent yourself from having property, that is be violent

>>15386557
dogs understand property and contracts if they're well trained, they won't eat your food.

I'm studying first year Polsci. This is literally the first thing you learn. It's fundamental to all states.
If you disagree you probably don't know what you are talking about or don't understand the concept.

>>15386566
Calling private property violence is reframing the issue backwards.

You say that property is violent because if someone tries to take it from you then you need to use violence.
That is exactly the same thing that happens with your own body.

Merely owning something is not violent, the violence comes in when someone tries to take it, the same way that violence comes in if someone attacks your body.

>>15386566
private property rely on violence. you deny this?.
seems like you talk of a world where nobody want your property ever and is an impossible assumption.
you are your body. you dont own your body.
you can live in a place, but is not your place, you "are" not a place. when is your place is because there are some kind of violence to back it up.

>>15386578
And how do you train a dog?

>>15386557
>"Defense" is a much broader concept. Defending a food supply, for example, means protecting its physical integrity against the elements. Nonhuman animals do not participate in contracts, so they are not expected to acknowledge any of our civil or property rights.
Really depends on the animal I think. Many animals are capable of demonstrating understanding that could be qualified as contractual. Just because animals can't read doesn't mean they can't participate in a contract.

>>15386614
your bodily autonomy also relies on violence

>>15386541
>>15386593
Using violence against violence in self-defense is another matter entirely. We are talking about ownership claims over external material resources, and how disputes over such claims are mediated. There is no dispute over who owns yourself.

>>15386627
>your bodily autonomy also relies on violence
yes, its truth. its strange to say you own your body. but yes. its the same

>>15386647
>There is no dispute over who owns yourself.
There is actually. Slavery has been very common. Many countries have drafts. Other examples abound.

The 'right' to bodily autonomy is no more real than that of private property. They both depend on violence.

>>15386593
If merely owning property is not violent then the debate is over >>15385542

>>15386650
So then rape and murder is allowed because owning it is violence

>>15386693
in microcosm it is obviously not violent. If you pick up a rock and hold it in your hand you have not done anything violent, and to take the rock from you would require physical violence.

>>15386701
So debate is over. I never claimed violence didn't exist, I just contradicted the claim that property is violence

>>15386699
>So then rape and murder is allowed because owning it is violence
rape and murder is violence too. nobody say what is allowed and what is not allowed. what is your point?.

>>15386390
even in America, most citizens won't have a gun, and the government and police know that
we may have the highest gun ownership but it's wildly imbalanced, most of the guns are owned by a minority of the people

>>15386587
>undergrad polsci thinking they know skeet shit
Yea piss off,boy

>>15386722
No you popped in halfway. If owning property is violence and you must own your person then you are committing violence unless you get raped and murdered. It's contradictory to disbelieve all humans should be raped and murdered w that reasoning.

>>15386663
>Slavery has been very common. Many countries have drafts. Other examples abound.
Those example are all cases of violence, though.

>The 'right' to bodily autonomy is no more real than that of private property.
Rights in general are not 'real' -- they are human constructs. But I would think the most obvious first right is the right not to be physically assaulted/molested/killed. That's as close to an 'absolute' right as it gets. The other 'rights' are at best provisional, and subject to nullification if they fail to promote the common good.

>>15386748
if you dont own your person. saying you are your own person is equally violent than rape and murder that person. your logic is fucked. i mean. your example is too overcomplicated. at least for me.
owning is a human concept. (a violent one) its like you are thinking is some kind of elemental thing.

>>15386748
The only thing any person 'owns' outright is himself. The rest is up to the social contracts he participates in.

>>15386390
this implies that insurgents count for most of the population and operate as hivemind

in reality it would be a waco or two then silence.

>>15386765
>But I would think the most obvious first right is the right not to be physically assaulted/molested/killed. That's as close to an 'absolute' right as it gets.
You would think wrong, it's completely arbitrary and there have been societies that didn't mind slavery at all but that did have property rights.

And taking someone's stuff by force is also violence.

This >>15386789
Contradicts
>>15386786

>>15386539
You wouldn't even need to drone the Amerilards. Just cut off their cable for a few days.

>>15383832
Yes.

>>15386800
>it's completely arbitrary and there have been societies
Are we talking anthropology or philosophy here? Obviously, humans have lived in all sorts of odious arrangements. Doesn't mean jack in normative terms.

>>15386804
Good thing we're two different people.

>>15386804
im not the first guy.
my point is that being a person is not the same as own yourself. its a too utilitarian way to see something delicate as "being". i think.
imagine we go to the moon and we say. we own the moon now. i see violence in there. is some kind of ontological way of seeing violence. as you said at the beginning. i give you that. if you dont see violence in there, its good, i simply dont agree. its the primal violence behing our actions.

>>15383928
The means by which one compels others to obey one’s will.

>>15386845
You don't get to have it both ways. You want to undermine the justification for property rights by asserting that to defend your property requires violence, go ahead, but you are getting rid of the same justification for personal autonomy.

The only other idea you have brought up is the 'common good', a laughbly vague concept which has been used to justify practically everything at one time or another.

>>15386866
>You want to undermine the justification for property rights by asserting that to defend your property requires violence
Nope. Again, I undermine it by asserting that enforcing property rights requires *uninitiated* violence. Self-defense is by definition not an initiation of violence.

>>15386861
I'm fine w ontologizing violence but simply your fleshy body has nothing to do w ur consciousness or being. Even if it's stuck to u for now, you could lose all legs and go on stilts or be transferred to ai, those amputations aren't you and neither is ur body after transference. So your body is property that must be raped to prevent self sexual ownership in a physical sense

>>15386866
>>15386907
Shit, let me try that again:

Nope. Again, I undermine it by asserting that enforcing property rights requires *the initiation of violence*. Self-defense is by definition not an initiation of violence.

>>15386907
It does not though. The violence only enters in when someone tries to take by force your property. They are the instigator.

>>15386928
>take by force your property
There's no such thing as "your property" without the threat of violence.

>>15385055
It seems to me that the real question in a civil war between state/civilians is whether elements of the army defects or not. If the army is deployed against the people (which has been done, see Iraq) the people really are in trouble, especially if the army engages the people without restraint (for example gas). But if parts of the army defects then even a previously unarmed population will soon get a hold of weapons (see Syria). And then of course the black market gets going. It just seems to me to be false to say that the possibility of a people to withstand the state depends on it being armed in peace time.

>>15386935
There is no thing as bodily autonomy without the threat of violence either, we have been through this. If you try to enter someone's home or take something they are holding, you are the one instigating violence.

>>15386913
>or be transferred to ai,
we dont know what is our conscience yet. you cant be transferred to ai. like i said. being is something more delicate and complex as owning yourself.

>>15386960
Sure but it has nothing to do w ur material body so that's still under property not being

>>15386954
If a homeless bum wanders into wilderness that you regard as "your property" and takes a nap, maybe eats an apple from one of "your trees", he is not initiating violence against you. If you shoot him or physically assault him, on the other hand, you are certainly initiating violence against him.

What are you not getting here?

>>15386297
>my point is not that every guy who follows an order is a brainwashed npc. but that, in order to maintain that order...
So it seems that we acknowledge that authority and power are different things.
I think that the main area where we disagree is that you see authority as deriving from violence, which is not the reality. Authority may wield power, but that does not imply that authority is derived from power. On the contrary, the fact that raw power seems to emerge in the *absence* of authority seems to imply a totally different relationship.
I encourage you to read the essay, which describes the problems the death of the idea of authority has led to.

>>15386985
He doesn't know what he's doing in that case so he can't be breaking the implied contract, if a homeless bum wanders into your actual living room I bet you'd react pretty differently.

Your reasoning is like that of a toddler, waiting for someone to turn their back so you can take something from them that you know they don't want you to.

>>15386978
i dont understand your point. i dont care about property. if you want to rape and saying is not violence because everything is violence i dont care. its truth. almost everything have violence in it.

>>15387005
>He doesn't know what he's doing in that case so he can't be breaking the implied contract
Suppose it's one of Ted Turner's ranches in Nebraska, and suppose the bum knowingly ignores the sign that says "private property"

>Your reasoning is like that of a toddler, waiting for someone to turn their back so you can take something from them that you know they don't want you to.
??? Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Property rights cannot exist without the threat of the initiation of violence. You've said nothing to challenge that truth.

>>15387058
Then the guy can ask him to leave and if he doesn't then he can threaten him.

I havent challenged that truth because it's a moronic fact that applies to literally everything. Nothing can exist without defending itself using violence, absolutely nothing.

>>15387001
>you see authority as deriving from violence,
i thought i explain myself better. i say authority needs violence if somebody dont agree with the "idea" behind the authority. violence is not only kill or send him to jail. but all kinds of punishments or exiles.

>but that does not imply that authority is derived from power.
authority need masses agreeing with that authority. there is a deaf violence behind that kind of peaceful authority.
in what rely authority for you?. is some kind of pure authority without dissidents?. what do that authority with the dissidents?. maybe my error is that i presuppose dissenters. (and in fact, they are the base of my point, the anti authority people...) but i think you are underestimate them.

>>15387078
>Nothing can exist without defending itself using violence
Sounds like you're agreeing with the OP, and then some.

But what you don't seem to grasp is that the right to bodily autonomy -- unlike so-called property rights -- can be upheld without the threat of the initiation of violence.

>>15387116
The right to your property can be upheld if you are physically guarding it. They would have to literally move you with force to take it. Property rights are just a contract that people make, an agreement that they dont have to literally guard their shit all the time. It is unironically infantile to not be able to grasp this, if someone spends all day collecting firewood and then when they turn their back you take it all you are basically making them slave for you.

>>15384552
>>15384877
Obligatory rebuttal.

>>15383832
Based, Stirner basically confirmed this over 150 years ago.

>>15387132
Every point is nonsense.

>>15387130
>The right to your property can be upheld if you are physically guarding it. They would have to literally move you with force to take it.
Ah yes, the difference between personal property and private property.

>Property rights are just a contract that people make, an agreement that they dont have to literally guard their shit all the time. It is unironically infantile to not be able to grasp this, if someone spends all day collecting firewood and then when they turn their back you take it all you are basically making them slave for you.
You are conflating a bunch of different things. First off: the trinity of usus, fructus and abusus. But more importantly, the acknowledgement that "property rights" are based on the threat of the initiation of violence does not entail that they must be jettisoned wholesale. Rights don't really exist, after all. They are human constructions. The moral, in the case of property rights, is not to live in denial of their ultimately violent nature.

>>15387132
>Leftists love...
Stopped reading there. Author is clueless.

>>15387179
>Ah yes, the difference between personal property and private property.
No not that, your personal property also would have to be defended constantly or someone could just take it 'without violence'

Property rights are not based on violence, they are fundamentally based on you spending your time acquiring property, and then someone else not being able to take it from you without forcing you. Your entire method of getting around this is literally to sneak and lie and cheat such that you can have access to what people spend effort amassing and then say 'lol it's not violent youre the violent one if you stop me'.

>>15387199
im not the guy. but then you agree that property rights assume the violence of the world?...

>>15387199
>Your entire method of getting around this is literally to sneak and lie and cheat such that you can have access to what people spend effort amassing
I'm sorry, are you accusing me of theft?

>then say 'lol it's not violent youre the violent one if you stop me'
And? If someone 'steals' an apple from your yard while you are away, they are obviously not committing violence against your person. You may not like it -- the theft may, in fact, be immoral, illegal, and/or unjust -- but it is not literally a form of violence.

>>15387241
Im not accusing you of theft, Im saying your entire reasoning about property requiring violence is based around the event of people engaging in theft.
If someone steals all your food and you starve is that violence?

>>15387251
>If someone steals all your food and you starve is that violence?
No. Not every crime is a violent crime.

>>15387109
Ok, so it’s obvious that without law, and the power to enforce the law, a society could not stand. This does not mean that power or violence are the basis for authority.
We can demonstrate this, but first, let’s recap what I meant by authority as a separate thing from power. Authority (from augere, which means to grow, to raise up) involves the interior submission to an order based on evidence of the truth of its ideals. Power (potestas, capability) is totally exterior, moving by violence, force, coercion. We can see that a society of pure interiority does not have the power to assert its laws cannot stand for long. But the reverse, a society of pure violence, force and coercion is even more absurd. It is totally contrary to human nature and would instantly disintegrate. (The secondary point was that this is just the type of society that the West is misguidedly trying to assemble, and we are witnessing this disintegration as the project advances, but let’s get on the same page on the main point first)
Now, given that we agree that participating in the common life of a well-ordered society isn’t just a form of brain slavery (many in the West don’t agree), what we begin to see is that power is something different from authority, something which amounts to its degradation, or even its absence.
Is that more clear?

>the novel was made in an effort to criticise fascist/militarist regimes
No it wasn't. Starship Troopers was written in response to headlines about American cessation of nuclear bomb testing. Heinlein saw military service as one way of achieving the radical individualist ideals that were becoming watered-down by nanny-state politics. TMiaHM applies the same ideas to a national level, where militant action is a prerequisite for national sovereignty.

>>15387251
>If someone steals all your food and you starve is that violence?
If you want to define violence solely as direct physical harm, then no; but this clearly creates an oxymoron. Violence should be more broadly defined as a tresspass on another's natural state (i.e. life, liberty, property)

>>15387542
>is that power is something different from authority, something which amounts to its degradation, or even its absence.
if i understand our conversation. i think we agree that authority and power have an interconnected relation. almost an interdependent relation. i think you want to separate authority from power but i dont really grasp what is the final motive for that. the truth is that they dont live in the distance. power and authority almost always go hand in hand.
but i understand you and appreciate the clarity in concepts. only that i see the point of view of the dissenters, i mean, the dissenters are always a menace to every authority. authority need some kind of appearance of ultimate knowledge in order to live. and the way they treat his dissenters are the place where you should look for authoritarism. not when every member of a society agree and accept that authority.

>>15386865
So diplomacy is a form of violence?

>>15383941
>>15383954
>>15386865
room temperature iq definitions of violence
>>15383928
your demand for a definition of violence is semantic faggotry. Violence is indeed the ultimate authority. The devoured are always subservient to the devourer. Humanity is at the apex of the food chain, and humanity is also the most destruction-capable organism. These two facts are not independent from eachother. This is why kindness is priceless.
pic related has been provided for supplement. I would highly recommend reading that book in its entirety, though it is not entirely related to violence.

>>15385469
>Take Venezuela for instance. When oil was expensive, the country was rich and was considered one of the best in South America. When the price of oil came down, the country collapsed and violence blew up. The violence in the country was predicated by the revenue they were able to bring in because of oil.
Please don't be so reductionist. It is very silly to assert "oil money number go down, so then mean bad people number go up." I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I am asking that you provide a more rigorous argument than what I have just had the displeasure of greentexting

>>15388427
I'm not going to write a book on it. This is just my observation. When a monetary system goes into hyperinflation and when food and basic necessities start to become scarce, violence erupts. In places which have been poor for decades and centuries, you get gangs and violence. It's just how it is.