/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15716135]

The Non-Aggression Principle is a spook. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15716197]

>>15716135
Spooks are the biggest spooks

[Anonymous No.15716282]

The NAP is just an agreement made by someone to every external actor that they will not inflict harm onto anyone else. Nobody expects that everyone will agree to this, which is why fences, guns, and security personnel exist. An egoist or a ancom can LARP online about running over piggy with a tank or whatever but come time to actually tread on someone's property outside of some nogunz city then their scrawny asses are beat to hell and back. Greensboro massacre.

[Anonymous No.15716339]

>>15716135
Yeah it's a spook, but in the long game Stirner sees hurting other people as a kind of self harm.

[Anonymous No.15716367]

>>15716135
Can someone explain how capitalism works without a state?

[Anonymous No.15716369]

>>15716282

[Anonymous No.15716370]

>>15716367
It doesn't

[Anonymous No.15716388]

>>15716135
>gibsmedat
>Why?
>Because I want it
Honestly nothing but respect. Based

[Anonymous No.15716419]

>>15716388

[Anonymous No.15716466]

>>15716135
.... it’s an argument though, not an abstract idea. not even libertarian, but this doesn’t qualify as a spook. you can trespass it, but that simply means the offfended party will retaliate.

[Anonymous No.15716598]

>>15716370
yeah, but why faqqot?

[Anonymous No.15716623]

You haven't read him

[Anonymous No.15716706]

I never signed any contract after being born

[Anonymous No.15716715]

>>15716197
Fpbp /thread

[Anonymous No.15716744]

>>15716135
>dude people breaking laws are proof that laws are just figments of the mind
holy shit Stirner is a genius bros

[Anonymous No.15716783]

>>15716367
>I want your shit
>You want my shit
>Trade.jpg

[Anonymous No.15716903]

>>15716783
>Implying it won't give rise to warlords who take what they want

[Anonymous No.15716953]

>>15716783
What if you don’t have anything?

[Anonymous No.15716955]

>>15716903
There was a literal warlord in Seattle the past month. I don't think it matters if there is a state or not.

[Anonymous No.15716977]

>>15716135
Probably the best image that encapsulates perfectly the distinction between the libertarian and the egoist

[Anonymous No.15716985]

>>15716977
Libertarianism got co-opted by pic related

[Anonymous No.15716993]

>>15716623
I could though, if I felt like it

[Anonymous No.15717000]

>>15716623
Can I just jump straight in?

[Anonymous No.15717002]

>>15716282
isn't this messiah prophesy symbolism?

[Anonymous No.15717012]

>>15717000
Yes, the only thing you should know is that the first chapter is a Hegel parody

[Anonymous No.15717020]

>>15716903
>people breaking the law is reason enough to discard the law altogether
holy shit leftist theory really is profound

[Anonymous No.15717033]

>>15717020
The law doesn’t stop them, does it?

[Anonymous No.15717052]

>>15716282
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15, KJV)

[Anonymous No.15717063]

>>15717020
>we're darwinists if we oppress people with our arbitrary fabricated mythology
wow, those rightoids really are close to nature

[Anonymous No.15717068]

>>15717033
>codifying the law doesn't automatically make people follow it
holy fuck those new developments are even better

[Anonymous No.15717086]

>>15717068
What does? Law enforcement?

[Anonymous No.15717088]

>>15716135
Spook

[Anonymous No.15717099]

>>15716135
The problem with the NAP is that the lobertarians try to sneak violation of so-called "property rights" into the definition of aggression. Embarrassingly question-begging.

[Anonymous No.15717103]

>>15716282
>An egoist or a ancom can LARP online about running over piggy with a tank
What if piggy runs you over with his tank?
You can't defend yourself because you can't afford one, and his private security agency is much better (and more expensive) than yours.

[Anonymous No.15717109]

>>15717086
yes

[Anonymous No.15717124]

>>15716135
such a bizarrely stupid bait, it literally makes no sense what you're saying since nap goes both ways, from an egoist stand point you want it to exist so you don't get destroyed by a person stronger than you, which let's face it, if you're reading stirner isn't an unlikely scenario

[Anonymous No.15717125]

are sternerites the most brainlet politico-philosophical group?

im not saying stirner was dumb, far from it, but due to the simple fact that the demographic in question has litterally one word they repeat ad infinitum, the entry level to be one is literally nill. all you need to know is the word “spook” and think it sounds funny to any vaguely abstract concept you see.

im not saying the perspective is necissarily wrong, but the bar for entry is so low that it seems babies get their heads pushed in by it.

[Anonymous No.15717142]

>>15717125
they basically only ever apply Stirner's thinking to property rights, try and apply it to an equally abstract and spooky notion of ownership of your body and advocate for raping women, then watch their onions brains melt in real time

[Anonymous No.15717151]

>>15717109
The same law enforcement with no accountability?

[Anonymous No.15717161]

>>15717142
>they basically only ever apply Stirner's thinking to property rights
In your dreams, cockrocker.

[Anonymous No.15717179]

>>15717142
i assume they will give some sort of appeal to utopianism that the best way to ensure your ego is pleased is to necessarily help society as a whole. as a geberal modus operendai i can get this, but i dont think it can pass the gyges ring scenario. if there seems to be ow enough probability that there will be any commupince for raping a women, than why not.

[Anonymous No.15717209]

>>15717099
If you produce something then you own it as a matter of the facto *without* any aggressive actions. This ownership can be changed only by voluntary transactions or by violence, obviously.

[Anonymous No.15717216]

>>15716135
it is but if you think that something being a spook is a bad thing you didnt get it.

[Anonymous No.15717223]

>>15716953
you don't get anything

[Anonymous No.15717241]

>>15717209
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.15717287]

>>15717241
Did you just laughed at the idea of property rights?

[Anonymous No.15717302]

>>15717287
The workers own what they make?

[Anonymous No.15717310]

>>15717287
Yes. It's begging the question to try to redefine "violence" so that it includes violation of your capitalcuckin' so-called property rights.

[Anonymous No.15717344]

>>15716367
>Can someone explain how capitalism works without a state?
>>>/biz/17750427
>idolizing "capitalism" when it's not even a coherent concept in most people's understanding. There is voluntary transactions, a market economy and accumulation of capital
Each of these elements can be had in a stateless society or even without any "society" at all.
Capitalism is a forager picking mushrooms from the forest and giving them to people who pay with jewels, as everything is paid for in this area.

[Anonymous No.15717352]

>>15717287
Commies are absolutely incapable of understanding the idea of not stealing people's things

[Anonymous No.15717354]

>>15717302
Yes. They can choose to immediately sell the fruits of their labor in exchange for wage - usually they do so if they use the tools supplied by their employer etc.

[Anonymous No.15717374]

>>15717310
>yeah mate just because I stole your food before you ate it i didn't actuality harm you you know Hahaha, deal with the hunger.
>yeah mate just beaus I burned down the house you built and now you have to sleep in the rain does not mean i harmed you just your property, dude no violence. Who cares about pneumonia.

[Anonymous No.15717377]

>>15717354
But what if they don’t want to sell it and just distribute it amongst themselves and others?

[Anonymous No.15717387]

>>15717302
Yeas, and they sell them to me while covering the price of the rent of the machines I built/bought that they use in order to make their products. I believe we decided to call it a salary, fashioned on the old payment the roman gave their legions.

[Anonymous No.15717397]

>>15717377
Then they can fuck off and stop using my land/machine/tools that I acquired and go somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.15717407]

>>15717377
Then they should not sign a job contract. There are plenty of so called self-employed people.

[Anonymous No.15717424]

>>15717374
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bootlick.

[Anonymous No.15717463]

>>15717424
>yeah dude if you don't like randoms fucking up your ability to feed and clothe yourself you are a bootlicker
>why don't you pick yourself up by the bootstraps dude, you know the thing you never said but I will assign to you nonetheless because I can only argue by straw-mans.
eh, eat a few burger commie that way you have some energy to think...oh wait I forgot... YOU CAN'T!

[Anonymous No.15717471]

>>15717463
Wait, you're not seriously arguing this, right? You're just shitposting, right?

[Anonymous No.15717474]

>>15717000
If you have read and enjoyed Nietzsche you are prepared to read Stirner because Nietzsche copied Stirner's style almost wholesale.
The only thing that will catch you off-guard is what all his references are, because he writes assuming you know everything he's talking about and he's just giving a different perspective on everything you're familiar with. You're virtually guaranteed to get lost and frustrated frequently, repeatedly questioning the relevance and tone of the information presented.

[Anonymous No.15717482]

>>15716623
Neither have you.

[Anonymous No.15717497]

>>15716744
The Ego and Its Own was a call to wake-up from the various levels of self-delusion people had induced in themselves from reifying morality. It is in fact quite revolutionary even today when people still unconsciously and subconsciously take their ethical indoctrinations since youth for granted, even when they think they're explicitly not doing so.

[Anonymous No.15717503]

>>15717471
I get commies get scared in the face of TRUE FREEDOM!!!! and even taking about the Delicious BURGERS!!!! would get you thrown into the gulag, but I don't care. I HAVE THE FREEDOM YOU BURGERLESS FUCK!!! I CAN EAT WHAT I PLEASE!!!!

[Anonymous No.15717544]

>>15717497
People will avoid the rain, then pour themselves a bath. Crazy shit, man.

[Anonymous No.15717552]

>>15717124
The Non-Aggression Principle forces upon the egoist a new 'cause' which arbitrarily restricts the permissible actions against other people, as well as saddling them with obligations toward them---and its authority is founded upon nothing just like every other moral "law", which is not a natural fact of the matter but an artificial contrivance.
It doesn't exist nor would an egoist care for it existing. Even as a slave you still have self-possession, if nothing else.

[Anonymous No.15717558]

>>15717471
No I actually belie this and you are retarded if you don't. You cannot just destroy someones property and claim no harm no foul you cunt.
Again tell me about how you can just burn the bed of a homeless guy because property is a capitalist dogma made to oppress the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.15717577]

>>15717558
The point is that you are already presupposing well-defined exclusive property rights. Who is to say he is destroying someone else's property and not his own?

[Anonymous No.15717590]

>>15716197
Only if you don't understand that spooks are merely about awareness of what you allow to have power over you and that not all spooks are bad.

[Anonymous No.15717592]

>>15717544
In the quest to wash away sins and purify oneself, it is more like thinking themselves too enlightened for the bath and preferring instead a hosing down, when in fact the dirt and stains are hallucinated in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15717600]

>>15717577
Because we cannot make property subjective and have a working society.

[Anonymous No.15717643]

>>15717600
Exactly. So how are these 'objective' property rights defined and how are conflicting claims to property adjudicated and enforced?

[Anonymous No.15717668]

>>15717643
I'm not an ancap, I just jumped in because some retard tried to claim property right were a joke.
Of course you have the sate do it, that is the only proper function of the state besides stealing the fruits of someones labor.

[Anonymous No.15717679]

>>15717125
You have enough sense to conclude therefore that they're poseurs who likely haven't read even one page of The Ego and Its Own and just "study" the few Wikipedia pages devoted to the subject, if that.

[Anonymous No.15717685]

>>15717668
lmao get outta here

[Anonymous No.15717703]

>>15717685
Oh so you do believe there is no such thing as property? what kind of moronic ideology do you subscribe to? because even communists believe in property only in that they belong to the community or tribe instead of individuals.

[Anonymous No.15717710]

>>15717668
ALL RIGHTS ARE A JOKE

[Anonymous No.15717713]

>>15717703
Nobody gives a shit about the state here

[Anonymous No.15717723]

>>15717703
Why would anyone give a shit what communists believe. If you want something you take it if you don't want it enough you wont.

[Anonymous No.15717738]

>>15717374
Private property =/= personal property

[Anonymous No.15717769]

I hereby declare Stirner and Foucault lovers

[Anonymous No.15717771]

>>15717503
This has to be bait or the next evolutionary stage of the mutt

[Anonymous No.15717774]

>>15717769
based

[Anonymous No.15717782]

>>15717738
Property is a social construct

[Anonymous No.15717787]

>>15717710
>>15717723
>>15717738
what a bunch of memeing neets lmao
Sorry but property right are here to stay
>If you want something you take it if you don't want it enough you wont.
As if any of you limp wristed faggots could do that lmao

[Anonymous No.15717794]

>>15717723
Because I assumed you are an ancom or some other such retard.
>>15717713
>>15717710
How do you live then? how does one participate on society?
The social contract must be followed or else we fell into chaos and nothing gets done.

[Anonymous No.15717807]

>>15717668
So the NAP already presupposes the existence of the State? What's the fucking point then?

[Anonymous No.15717812]

>>15717738
What is the difference? what defines "personal"?

[Anonymous No.15717818]

All the wagies in this thread trying to to justify be cucks

[Anonymous No.15717825]

>>15717807
Look dude I'm not ancap like i said. I came here to argue with them but some dumb shit said property rights are a spook and her ewe are.

[Anonymous No.15717838]

>>15717825
You sound very confused.

[Anonymous No.15717849]

>>15717812
You could've just wikipedia it

[Anonymous No.15717857]

>>15717812
That which you personally consume. "Private property" only applies to the society's means of production.

[Anonymous No.15717867]

>>15717794
>Because I assumed you are an ancom or some other such retard.
No I adhere to whatever political philosophy is beneficial for myself at that time but generally sympathize with the left as my class interest correlates generally to that of my ego
>How do you live then? how does one participate on society?
The social contract must be followed or else we fell into chaos and nothing gets done.
I live a relatively normal life always acting in within my self interest, I fully reject morality and property and would be willing to break any taboo if it was to my benefit in the long term

[Anonymous No.15717908]

>>15717825
How are they not a spook they do not objectively exist, it is a work of the mind and entirely a social construct void of all legitimacy only existing in the minds of brainwashed dogmatic schizoids who ruthlessly enforce their mental illness of the majority of people. Perhaps you could make an argument they have value within society and maybe they do as a concept but that does not make them real.

[Anonymous No.15717910]

>>15717849
Against ha makes no sens. I already knew that definition but that is why I asked if you had a more intelligent one.
"personal" use mean jack shit because if i have 31 cars and use then each day of the month they are still for personal use, but if I have one and pay people to works cab driver I'm suddenly exempt of the "personal" protection.
It just makes no sense. You are condemning the use of the property and if that is the case then the property is not yours to begin with. What if i use my one and only tooth brush to get someone else to scrub the toilets of people while paying him part of the money earned? whoa re you to say i can do it or the guy who doesn't want to stain his own toothbrush is being oppressed and can't make some extra money?

[Anonymous No.15717912]

Stirner plays a lot with the inherent negativity of saying that someone is an "egoist", and I think this play on words is often lost when discussing him.
He was talking about a self centered ontological relation with knowledge wich then propulsed his political views, not about being a selfish cunt.

[Anonymous No.15717928]

>>15717908
Spook in the sense of a social construct then yes of course they are a "social construct" one could say they are the first social construct because they are necessary for society to exist. AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS ARE REAL YOU FUCK.
Tell me if are a carpenter who makes chair but people just walk to your house and steal the chair you make instead of buying or trading for then why would you keep making chairs?

[Anonymous No.15717932]

>>15717910
Once you start using it for non-personally then it's no longer personal property

[Anonymous No.15717943]

>>15717910
Consider ownership of a lake, an industrial building, or another human being. Would you consider any of this "personal property"? If not, then you have little choice but to accept a conception of "private property" as roughly that upon which hands could not be laid in claim and similarly used by one's own person.

[Anonymous No.15717945]

>>15717928
unbased retard

[Anonymous No.15717957]

>>15717912
>wants to be clear
>uses another ambiguous term like "self-centered"

[Anonymous No.15717982]

>>15717287
>ohhhh no not my private propertierinooo what about the heckin borkin NAP

[Anonymous No.15717988]

>>15717932
Again, like I said, that is a stupid definition for what to enforce and what not. Of course mister secretary of the party need his 12 cars he uses every single one of then as well as his 5 mansions. But Timmy who writes and pays the paper boy to sell papers, who has one house and no cars, is clearly a filthy bourgeoisie using his private property to exploit the proletariat. He does not sell his papers personally and therefore his papers are no longer personal property they become the veil private property.

[Anonymous No.15717998]

>>15717943
Lake yes, industrial building yes, another person no.

[Anonymous No.15718021]

>>15717998
>Lake yes

[Anonymous No.15718032]

>>15717912
>Spook in the sense of a social construct then yes
Based
>one could say they are the first social construct because they are necessary for society to exist
Implying you need property rights for a society to function, I am not going to argue this with you because you are clearly a sheltered little puppet. Read Kapital.
>AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS ARE REAL YOU FUCK.
The physical belief in things that do not materially exist is a symptom of mental illness
>Tell me if are a carpenter who makes chair but people just walk to your house and steal the chair you make instead of buying or trading for then why would you keep making chairs?
To benefit from the product of your labor, obviously the state would protect you in such circumstances and if it didn't firearms are a useful alternative

[Anonymous No.15718044]

>>15718032
You replied to the wrong comment tard

[Anonymous No.15718051]

>>15718044
the only way someone cares about my posts lol

[Anonymous No.15718057]

>>15718021
Why can't you own a lake? lets say you are a self sufficient farmer. Having a lake for fish is normal and good for reducing waste.

[Anonymous No.15718065]

>>15718032
>>15717928
For

>>15718044
I was just pretending to be retarded :^)

[Anonymous No.15718072]

>>15718057
>own a lake
That wasn't the question. Reread the chain.

[Anonymous No.15718080]

>>15716367
>>15716598
In a pure Laissez-Faire capitalist system, the sole function of the state is to recognize and defend private property rights. All other human organizations emerge spontaneously from these conditions, constituting what is called the “market.” Under “anarcho-capitalism,” the state is abolished. So anarcho-capitalism consists only of those human organizations which emerge spontaneously under no state. The word for such an organization is ‘state,’ a fact to which all human history will attest. So capitalism does not work without a state, and anarcho-capitalism is in fact neither anarchistic nor capitalistic.

[Anonymous No.15718112]

>>15718032
>Implying you need property rights for a society to function, I am not going to argue this with you because you are clearly a sheltered little puppet. Read Kapital
Oh really? then you have no issue with american going into , lets say cube or whatever other leftist country you tout as a success, getting all of they "property" and going back to the US with it right?
Yes you need property rights because you can't have random fuck going everywhere and getting things they didn't work for. Society would collapse without them.
>The physical belief in things that do not materially exist is a symptom of mental illness
OH NO MATHEMATICS IS A LIE!!!!!! AT LAST I FINALLY SEE!!!!!
>To benefit from the product of your labor,
you can't if you have no right over the property you made.
>obviously the state would protect you in such circumstances
Why would they? there's no ownership.

[Anonymous No.15718118]

>>15718080
>>15717344

[Anonymous No.15718121]

>>15718072
>Consider ownership of a lake, an industrial building, or another human being. Would you consider any of this "personal property"?

[Anonymous No.15718128]

>>15718118
Solid rebuttal anon

[Anonymous No.15718134]

>>15718121
>If not, then you have little choice but to accept a conception of "private property"

[Anonymous No.15718140]

>>15717463
>eh, eat a few burger commie that way you have some energy to think...oh wait I forgot... YOU CAN'T!

[Anonymous No.15718155]

>>15718134
Yeah I give to you that slaves fall under that weird definition of private property. I don't see how that help your point seeing how slavery is not something even all ancaps subscribe to.

[Anonymous No.15718199]

>>15718155
You obviously don't even understand "the point".

[Anonymous No.15718228]

>>15718199
No I understand it, I just won't let you try to twist definitions in order to pain a picture with the words that contradict what you want to say.
Private property includes and is ALL YOU PRIVATELY OWN!

[Anonymous No.15718270]

>>15718228
Again, >>15718021

[Anonymous No.15718277]

>>15718112
>Oh really? then you have no issue with american going into , lets say cube or whatever other leftist country you tout as a success, getting all of they "property" and going back to the US with it right?
Sure why not? This happens even when people recognize property rights just look at the Middle East, the only thing stopping them from doing so is the ability to defend themselves with material arms not abstract moral constructs.
>OH NO MATHEMATICS IS A LIE!!!!!! AT LAST I FINALLY SEE!!!!!
Just because it's not objectively real it does not mean it is not useful. The difference between math and property rights is that math works to my benefit. All property rights do is limit the potential of working people.
>you can't if you have no right over the property you made.
Yes you can it's called mutual aid, if I can do something and someone else can't then they give me something they have that I want and we both benefit from a mutualistic relationship. Violence is not always within ones self interest. This could be more widely practiced through the use of co-ops that do not expropriate the labor of individual workers
>Why would they? there's no ownership.
Because it would be mutually beneficial

[Anonymous No.15718280]

>>15718270
Yes lake

[Anonymous No.15718292]

>>15717474
Does Nietzsche ever reference stirner or say anything that stirner says?

[Anonymous No.15718302]

>>15717497
Someone needed to point out that we base our morality on social indoctrination since youth? This isn't immediately obvious to everyone?

[Anonymous No.15718311]

>>15717982
porky is a spook

[Anonymous No.15718317]

>>15718199
"Understanding 'the point'" is a spook

[Anonymous No.15718326]

>>15716135
If a spook benefits me, shouldn't I support it, from an egoist's perspective?

[Anonymous No.15718329]

>>15717849
Wikipedia is a spook. You can not point to a physical location in space and say "there is wikipedia", you can not hold wikipedia in the palm of your hand

[Anonymous No.15718330]

>>15718292
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner

Nietzsche were deathly afraid of being called derivative so he and his sister went out of their way to avoid association with Stirner. The evidence besides clear as day reading and comparison of the works is hearsay.

>John Glassford believes that there is "staggering similarity" between some of the two men's ideas. While he seems to believe that it is likely that Nietzsche read Stirner, he stops short of asserting any certain influence or plagiarism:

>Stylistically speaking, Stirner uses hyperbole and metaphor in much the same way as Nietzsche, although most would agree that Nietzsche's technique is the more successful. Compare, for example, Stirner's image of the state—"the state turns against me with all the force of its lion-paws and eagle-claws: for it is the King of beasts, it is lion and eagle" (1995, 226)—with Nietzsche's description of the state in Thus Spoke Zarathustra—the "State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters" (I "On the New Idol"). Even allowing for the vagaries of translation, it is clear that Stirner's prose is more repetitive and pedestrian than Nietzsche's, and very often, as in the example just given, Stirner's metaphors just don't work.

[Anonymous No.15718334]

>>15717463
The CIA actually published an article on how the average Soviet citizens diet nutritionally superseded that of the average American
>https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84b00274r000300150009-5

[Anonymous No.15718336]

>>15718302
It escaped even Marx.

[Anonymous No.15718338]

>>15718277
>Sure why not? This happens even when people recognize property rights just look at the Middle East, the only thing stopping them from doing so is the ability to defend themselves with material arms not abstract moral constructs.
so you support american imperialism and their intervention in the middle east? good for you you warmonger. But I don't and I assumed you were a good human being.
>All property rights do is limit the potential of working people.
WHAT? no property right means you don't have your shoes stole when you go to sleep in your house, or better yet you don't have your house stolen.
And math is real you brainlet, just because something is not physical does not mean it doesn't exist.
>Yes you can it's called mutual aid, if I can do something and someone else can't then they give me something they have that I want and we both benefit from a mutualistic relationship.
They can't give you anything, they don't own anything property is a lie did you forget?
>Because it would be mutually beneficial
Who is to decide what is mutual beneficial? can the guy deny the fuckers getting his chairs? if so then HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM OWNING PROPERTY?
And if not they the problem still persists. the guy is still going into the house and getting the chair but now they leave some shitty pebbles nobody wanted behind.

[Anonymous No.15718349]

>>15718302
Only NPCs obtain their morals that way.

[Anonymous No.15718353]

>>15718334
>yes we should believe the CIA.
> expect when they talk about the soviet union all of those are lies
>except when they praise the soviet union all of that is true.
how do you accommodate the rooms need for those mental gymnastics in your head?

[Anonymous No.15718363]

>>15718353
That's all in your head, schizo.

[Anonymous No.15718373]

>>15718363
Not him, but this is a retarded post.

[Anonymous No.15718409]

>>15718334
>44% of calories from grain products and potatoes:
Is this why they call it breadtube?

[Anonymous No.15718416]

>>15718373
Then why did you post it?

[Anonymous No.15718435]

>>15718416
This is also a retarded post. Did the same hands type it?

[Anonymous No.15718437]

>>15718435
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.15718443]

>>15718338
>so you support american imperialism and their intervention in the middle east? good for you you warmonger. But I don't and I assumed you were a good human being.
I support whatever benefits myself materially. Good and bad are spooks I only care about what is real and works for me.
>WHAT? no property right means you don't have your shoes stole when you go to sleep in your house, or better yet you don't have your house stolen.
And math is real you brainlet, just because something is not physical does not mean it doesn't exist.
Lmao. You've built yourself quite a mind prison. Look after your mental health anon.
>They can't give you anything, they don't own anything property is a lie did you forget?
I absolutely love how you equate this abstract concepts as essential for meh western civilization
>Who is to decide what is mutual beneficial? can the guy deny the fuckers getting his chairs? if so then HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM OWNING PROPERTY?
And if not they the problem still persists. the guy is still going into the house and getting the chair but now they leave some shitty pebbles nobody wanted behind.
Individuals and the amount of physical power they have. Individuals working together have more influence then individuals working alone. Collective labor allows us to achieve allot more this is often in our self interest and results in states.
>>15718409
No the Soviet Union is in no way related to breadtube it's to do with the book "The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin who most likely would have apposed it as he was an anarchist

[Anonymous No.15718494]

Putting capitalist nonsense aside, the NAP is generally a good foundation. I mean do you really want to live in a world where everyone is raping, murdering, stealing constantly? Yes it still happens, but when most people are basically trustworthy life is better for everyone.

[Anonymous No.15718518]

>>15718494
What part of the NAP makes people trustworthy?

[Anonymous No.15718532]

>>15718518
???
What conception of NAP are you working with here anon?

[Anonymous No.15718540]

>>15718532
A selected group of principles that nobody has an obligation to follow

[Anonymous No.15718613]

>>15718494
Google "Tendency of the rate of profit to fall"

[Anonymous No.15718980]

>>15717344
Capitalism is not just the exchange of goods. And never seriously link to /biz/ again. Fucking hell.
Capitalism is very specifically associated with the exchange of nonmaterial capital and associated concepts like stocks. Its associated with totally private property which is not an idea that was viewed as valid for most of human history. Its associated with the idea of a free and uncontrolled market which is not how any classical economy functioned - and in reality there are no free markets without heavy regulation regardless.

Capitalism is a recent idea that traces back properly to the Dutch Golden Age. Morons trying to backport the term to cover all historical commerce should be ignored and called out for their idiocy.

[Anonymous No.15719066]

>>15718980
>Capitalism is not just the exchange of goods.
Hence why there's three elements listed there.
>And never seriously link to /biz/ again.
I never say this, but you force me to unironically: fuck off commie.
>Capitalism is very specifically associated
by commies
>with the exchange of nonmaterial capital and associated concepts like stocks. Its associated with totally private property which is not an idea that was viewed as valid for most of human history. Its associated with the idea of a free and uncontrolled market which is not how any classical economy functioned - and in reality there are no free markets without heavy regulation regardless. Capitalism is a recent idea that traces back properly to the Dutch Golden Age. Morons trying to backport the term to cover all historical commerce should be ignored and called out for their idiocy.
That's nice dear but rebuts nothing in that post.

[Anonymous No.15719107]

>>15718443
>Lmao. You've built yourself quite a mind prison. Look after your mental health anon.
NOT
AN
>I absolutely love how you equate this abstract concepts as essential for meh western civilization
ARGUMENT

>Collective labor allows us to achieve allot more this is often in our self interest and results in states
>Individuals working together have more influence then individuals working alone.
yes
>Collective labor allows us to achieve allot more this is often in our self interest and results in states.
non sequitur collective labor as explained by socialist dogmas is not necessary for an increase in production.

[Anonymous No.15719182]

>>15719107
S E E T H E

[Anonymous No.15719342]

>>15718980
It's also important to mention that there is a distinction between simply possessing an object and owning an object as property. If you've ever read Proudhon, you'd know what I mean. For example, an abstract 'right' to adjudicate exclusive control over an object no matter the possession is a legal fiction, 'possession' is an actual fact.

For example, I might work as a janitor, and 'posses' my broom that I work with on a daily basis, but my employer 'owns' it.

This is why definitions of 'capitalism' that just boil down to "I trade some apples for a pot" or whatever are very misleading. Capitalism rests on a specific set of norms and institutions enforced via a legal apparatus.

As Proudhon and Marx have both observed, pre-capitalistic market arrangements that preclude a capitalist 'right of increase' have existed for centuries, capitalism hasn't existed for more than a few centuries. I highly recommend books like Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation as well as Debt: The First 5,000 years which explain the history of how capitalist property norms essentially arrived through threat of violence, viz., the enclosures, where governments privatized land held in common by the peasantry, therefore forcing them into the cities where they had no choice but to do wage work.

The Lockean conception of sticky property is very new, and it has been preceded by numerous legal understandings of property, all of which have been tied to government enforced legal systems. Libertarians are just bad historical revisionists who have no idea the historical, sociological, and legal framework of property. It's baffling.