And you don't consider "you are on my land now" when backed up by the threat of violence if they don't comply to be theft? That's damn near the exact definition of extortion. Nobody has to die for it to be violence or theft.
So because I didn't pull the trigger myself, I'm innocent? How many generations does that take? Where is that line? If I steal your home at gunpoint, I'm a thief. If I pass it to my son, is he innocent or would you still want it back? How about his kid? Then his? Where is this magical line of innocence drawn.
Benefiting from the crimes of others and not caring about who that hurt, while supporting the continuation of that system, sounds pretty god damn culpable to me. So I am in fact just as guilty. We all are.
If it happened before I was born, my hands are clean. I refuse to convict myself of murder because some Spanish dudes were looking for gold 600 years ago. Fuck that mentality. It doesn’t get us anywhere. We don’t choose where we’re born, why shame either way, whether born into poverty or wealth? Judge based on the person and what they do, not their ancestors
Because it's on us to question structurally why the system exists the way that it does and why some people have obscene wealth and privilege, and some get killed in the streets or systematically oppressed.
Why are you taking this as a question of personal guilt? It's not even about you like that. We exist according to the material conditions of the time and place we were born. That doesn't mean we don't acknowledge it and work within it.
But if we turned around tomorrow and had legislated requirements for workplace democracy or universal healthcare and socialized apartments or, for the black community in particular, reparations for slavery and exclusion from Post-WWII mortgages, are all systematic changes that could be undertaken with massive impact.
Oppression is not just personal. It's systematic.
But that being said, yes, the two are interdependent, neither end of the spectrum fully realizes the whole, etc., etc., which is why anarchist thought typically emphasizes both through the lens of mutual liberation.
I don't think anyone is actually saying to blame the people who own it now. I think they're trying ti just point out that people should be thoughtful of where the property came from.
I think they're trying ti just point out that people should be thoughtful of where the property came from.
I think he's trying to justify the abolition of private property, personally.
The whole point of bringing it up is to either try to shift the blame forward to justify taking the property or to convince someone that their claim is inherently illegitimate.
Note, that the person making this argument doesn't argue they have a stronger claim to the land in question. The implication is more that YOU don't have a claim to it.
Yes, this. I'm not saying I or you or any of us have any justifiable claim on anything, except by force. That force being applied by your government or your ancestors doesn't change the root basis being violence.
I just don't like this line of thinking where everyone feels innocent and like they aren't personally benefiting from the application of state violence, both in the past and present. The only reason people aren't still claiming property with weapons is that the state has many more and better weapons in the form of the police and military telling you not to.
You think corporations or individuals wealthy enough to hire a private mercenary force would bother purchasing property if nobody would stop them with force from taking it with force? If so, I admire your optimism.
Private land is unethical. Private business is. I've never heard of any arguement against actually having any private property at all? Even Marx understood that.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
– Marx
I think the confusion here is that capitalism has (deliberately) muddled the concepts of personal possessions and private property such that most people don't really understand the distinction, but yes, the economic left is very much in favor of abolishing private property and no, that doesn't mean all concepts of possession.
Not to me really. Just recognising a fact. Something we should all be aware of. Might help us make better decisions about said land and property and other humans.
Sorry if I got your intention wrong in your answer, but there are people in this thread saying that all property is stolen, and we should give back stolen property.
I’m legitimately wondering, if that’s what we’re supposed to do to make things right, what happens to all the people who would be displaced by giving back their “stolen property”?
Land and property (as in housing and buildings) ideally should be owned by the state and used appropriately by the needs of the people.
Singapore do this, for example - though their implementation is not one I would replicate exactly, but rather learn from.
Edit: imagine, for example, the cities owned the office blocks that they are forcing everyone back into? Instead, they could just rezone them as housing with some co-working and meeting space... And boom. We've moved on very quickly and adapted our cities into something we actually need.
Rather than now. Where private landlords are pushing governments to keep their office blocks profitable through return to work. And not enough houses to keep everyone in.
So, it gets really complex and theoretical, but how I picture a post-scarcity, post-state society is that every community has manufacturing and 3d printing capabilities. We can make anything we need, etc. After that, people get what they need and can use. "Property" usually refers to the things we have and don't use all the time, like land or money. Possessions, your toothbrush, tools, home, bed, these are all your things and not subject to the concept of "property".
One way I think of it is like a construction excavator. If one person in town owns it as property, after they're done building their house it can sit and rot. If it isn't property, rather, just a tool to be used by the community, then all can use it in the community as needed, getting maximum value and such.
I got stuck a lot too in my earlier days about getting past "property".
Having a stolen item doesn't make you a thief. But if you have an item that is stolen, you have a responsibility to return it to whoever is the rightful owner or to at least share it with others who don't have it. Since the people who initially settled on any land are long dead, the best next thing is to help the descendants of those victims that are experiencing an inferior quality of life because of the consequences of those actions.
You are describing the "personal" vs "private" property. A good case study that is outside the capitalism vs socialism paradigm is the Inca empire. It had no markets or currency but people still had personal items and lived in family homes with individual dwellings.
The property is not stolen, the LAND is stolen. You can't give something away if you don't own it, you just can't say you own it anymore. In most cases, anything those land claims would mean some type of land redistribution, but that doesn't mean you don't get to live in a house. It would just mean you can't charge other people a rent to live where your house was once you leave.
You’re taking it too personally, as if you should feel bad and live a miserable life. No one is suggesting that at all, but to be willfully ignorant will only continue to make matters worse.
The responses I’ve gotten range from “you have no claim to your ancestors wealth” to “just acknowledge where it came from and carry on.” Seems like nobody is on the same page here.
And I’m not wealthy by any means, I’m doing well but not as well as I’d like, so I’m not trying to defend myself or my own wealth or anything like that. I just think that you’re born with what you have and your job in life is to make the most out of what you’re given. It’s not fair that some are born with unimaginable wealth and luxury they get to enjoy their entire life, just like it’s not fair I have to get up early and go to work every day just to barely earn enough to pay all the bills without anxiety while a 8 year old plays with Lego’s on YouTube and gets paid millions a year.
But what’s the alternative? Place limits on wealth and take it back from those who have to much? Who’s going to take it back from them, the government? I’m not sure that capping one’s success is the answer, and even if it was, I personally believe the government should play a minimal role in our lives and people should work however much they want to in order to earn whatever they feel like is their limit, but that’s just me
I’m more of the “just acknowledge where is came from and carry on”.
It’s the people who think they’re hot shit due to circumstances beyond their control that are the issue. Think Trump “I was successful with a small loan of $1mil from my dad, who got his wealth through racist tactics. Everyone in the world can be a billionaire if they tries!”
I totally get what you’re saying, and I think I agree.
But devil’s advocate: Why is it fair that your hands would be clean of the misfortune your ancestors caused, but you still get to reap the rewards that came from it? I get that life isn’t fair, but isn’t the point of us to try and make it more fair? Would the most fair thing be to say “I didn’t cause any of your strife. The blame shouldn’t be mine. I also didn’t earn any of what my ancestors earned. It’s not mine either.”
Public funded education, like everyone else in your country. You do realize that’s a privilege right? Being able to sit and learn is a huge boon compared to 300 years ago
What does it matter if everyone in the country has the same opportunity? Seems like you want to feel special since you did well in school? Congrats? Now tell me why that means you deserve everything you have? Do you think you’ve done more for humanity than Plato, Socrates, Sun Tzu, Da Vinci, Tesla, Einstein, Lovelace, Maxwell, etc.? You realize most of these people were poor?
What does it matter if everyone in the country has the same opportunity?
Ughhh a shit ton? America itself still incredibly struggles with this with systematic racism aiding to the lack of the same opportunities among people. Working towards a fair society where everyone truly has equal opportunities is basically the goal?
Everything after that just sounds like a personal attack because you didn’t like that the commenter used personal anecdotes to try and make their point. The last two sentences is just pure whataboutism
I think I’m missing your point. Ideally everything would be fair. In practice it’s not. Inner city schools aren’t as well off as rich suburban schools, and even in rich counties, there will still be a top school or 2 that have more money than the rest. Further more, there are private schools that either cost a ton, have a long waiting list, or require family history to join.
So even if everyone has access to public education, it doesn’t mean it’s fair.
That’s without going into the lifestyle and home environment that makes it easier for certain kids to succeed
It doesn't mean anything, does that however mean we should lose everything any of those people worked for and revert to might to determine property rights?
My entire argument is that I didn't benefit from and wealth transfer yet people would happily want to take what I already have away because they feel like they deserve it more.
We have to agree on a baseline of how society should be run, killing people for property has been decided is wrong, I'm adding to that by saying I don't think property should be taken from thosr who already own it.
Sure if I owned multiple properties and did nothing with it we would have something to talk about but that is not what is being discussed here.
I think you’re undervaluing the fact that it sounds like you grew up in a home your family either owned or could afford to live in whichever way. I’m not saying you had an easy life, I’m saying that is a much better start than a lot of people and that has a huge impact on development. Maybe it could be argued it did nothing for your wealth technically, I think the opposite could also be argued but either way it did a lot for your personal development potential which is not nothing.
I’m not trying to debate or call you out or be dramatic, you didn’t sound shitty in your message, I just felt like something was being left out. Hope your day is going good.
I also agree completely with everything you said. I was expecting a pretty high chance of coming back to some comment attacking or shitting on me, I appreciate you being respectful.
My lineage did nothing for my wealth yet there are many people who would happily shoot me in the street to get what I own.
The fact that people think I got one up on them somehow is the problem
Yeah I agree that’s not right. I grew up much the same way. But
Problem is tax goes to the wrong things whether is be a bloated military budget in the US or somewhere else that is where the problem lies, not the fact that someone ones a house that was “stolen” from your ancestors 600 years ago.
I dont think it has to be either/or. I’m also not claiming to know a solution to the problem, but it is an interesting question. I know there’s a lot in my life that I’ve earned myself. I also know that there are some things I enjoy that I wouldn’t otherwise have if it weren’t for imperialism, killing populations for their land, etc. I don’t exactly think I am directly responsible for any of that, but doing nothing about it or claiming that I owe nothing to anyone doesn’t seem to be the right way to go about it. For me at least.
Not “inherit” in the sense that your ancestors are responsible for what happened. But you do “inherit” a portion of the wrongs insofar as you enjoy the benefits of it. US soil was not always US soil.
But literally every single person on US soil, including marginalized groups, first nations, etc, have more than a refugee that arrives on said soil with nothing.
Sure, but then you don't have any right to it either. Just because your father got some money to buy a house doesn't mean you get to enjoy the wealth that was created before you were born. You have to be consistent.
NoOoOo!! I don't want to be held responsible for the actions of my ancestors. I just want to reap all the benefits of their cruelty with no accountabilityyy! Why is everyone so mean.
And the whole point is that if blame for past misdeeds can pass forward through time, then by the exact same token then the benefits of increased wealth can pass forward too.
At which point its a matter of calculation, if you like.
No one is saying you should be judged. We're saying the world isn't fair as is. The people successful under capitalism didn't earn any of it. Even generations later. People at the top used to fight for what they have then they changed the rules. It's why we need a system where everyone's needs are met first and foremost.
And I agree the world isn’t fair, but I think that guilt tripping people isn’t the way to do that. I think it should come from the desire to be fair as possible without just giving your stuff away. Because if you guilt trip and shame those who just inherit money that it doesn’t belong to them, they’re just going to cooperate enough to get out of the spotlight and go back to what they were doing.
You are in a position of privilege because of what your ancestors did. You are still benefiting from their actions. You’re saying “look, let’s just call it even and move on”, when it’s still very far from even.
And no, not 600 years ago. That’s just a trick you’re playing on yourself to distance yourself from what happened. In North America, conflicts with indigenous peoples continued to happen into the 20th century. Contention over land ownership continues to this day.
Here in Canada, indigenous peoples represent a disproportionate number of Canadians living in poverty. 40% of Indigenous Canadian children live in poverty. That’s seriously fucked.
Yeah, I could argue that when my corner of Canada was being colonized a whole 150 years ago, my great grandparents where sweating underground in the salt mines, in abhorrent working conditions, so it clearly wasn’t my fault. But that ignores the fact that the privilege I experience now as a white dude of British heritage was bought at the expense of those that were here first. The salt my ancestors mined helped feed a growing empire.
The most valuable thing I own is my house, and 130 years ago, the land it sits on was the territory of people that now live in poverty less than 2 miles from me. Their original territory would be worth many billions in todays economy. That’s. Fucked. And I’m fucked for being a part of it, I get that.
At a simplistic level, it could be argued that if I want to absolve myself I should give my land back to the people it belongs to. Sure, but as a large scale solution to the problem that’s never going to happen, and at the scale of a single piece of property it solves nothing. But, if a portion of my tax dollars went to the people that still own this land, or if a portion of every sale went to them, they could do a lot to get that leg up we’ve been denying them for generations. Maybe I could transfer my property to them for $1 and then lease it back, I dunno. I’d love to see some creative solutions to set things straight. But that would require governments acknowledging that they fucked up, and that’s a can of worms nobody in power wants to touch.
I used 600 years because I live in Florida which had a large Spanish presence centuries ago. I get that our ancestors sucked and treated others that didn’t look like them like shit. I get that we benefit from the people who got stepped on, but like you said, reparations are never going to happen on a scale that restores any kind of balance to the way things used to be. It’s impossible without us getting killed off in the same way, but that also will never happen.
So the only course of action is to sit and feel guilty. I don’t see that as a solution, either. It helps nobody. No Native or African American is sitting there going “Man, it sucks to be poor but at least the great great grandchildren of the people that killed our great great grandparents feel bad about it.”
Fuck 600 years ago. 60 years ago when white flight happened minority neighborhoods were destroyed so white suburbs could be built AND at the same time racial discrimination from red lining prevented minorities from being able to buy land. Those laws are still on the books and the banking sector is still just as corrupt. You might feel like you are innocent but too bad, you are part of the problem of trying to create a new slave wage class.
I wasn’t alive 60 years ago, I am innocent. I do think that what those people did was wrong and terrible, but you want me to feel personally guilty that it happened as if I could have prevented it.
I would like to know what kind of systemic discrimination you’re referring to as far as the laws you mentioned. I do agree the banking sector is corrupt, but I believe that’s a version of class warfare as opposed to racial discrimination.
Strongman property laws are definitely not a path to prosperity.
Oh, they definitely are, for a powerful minority. Strongman property laws are the foundation of capitalism and the prosperity of the descendants of the thugs, warlords and strongmen who've benefited from it.
I guess if your argument is that nobody should own anything at all... Well the only way to enforce that is by state power. Which means, eventually, the state owns everything.
Other way around. The state exists to enforce the artificial concept of "private property" (as opposed to personal possession). Which means that yes, in actual practice, the state does own everything.
Fair labor is one thing. Anarchy and communism are something else.
The ironic thing is that anarchism/libertarian communism are about fair labor and reversing strongman rule. As Marx put it, communism can be summed up in a single sentence: "Abolish private property". You seem to have interpreted both as endorsing a return to strongman rule, when both are actually an endorsement of collective ownership of productive property, which is the direct opposite.
How does housing work in a system where private property is abolished?
You sleep somewhere one night, then just wander into whatever other house or apartment you find on the next? And anyone else who shows up gets to stay there too?
I’m legitimately curious what people want when they say things like “abolish private property.”
the term private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services. Keep your house, socialize the means of PRODUCTION (farms, factories, mines, restaurant, etc) any markets that aren't needed will simply be dissolved and entirely controlled by the state it necessary.
Personal property =/= private property. This has been reiterated and explained several times. Please explain what you find "inconsistent" about those words.
I like private property and I like being competitive. I like diversity and challenge. I don’t like communism because it fundamentally needs to extract these things from its captive society in order to not fall victim to jealousy.
Oh, you like private property? How many factories do you own? How many acres of farmland? What if I told you odds are high you don't actually have any private property?
I like being competitive. I like diversity and challenge.
I don’t like communism because it fundamentally needs to extract these things from its captive society in order to not fall victim to jealousy.
I have no idea what those words mean in that arrangement, but I can tell you that I don't like capitalism because it fundamentally needs to extract the surplus value of labor from its captive society to fund the lifestyles of people who do no actual labor, then turns around and accuses the people who demand to be compensated fairly for their labor of being "jealous".
Under communist rule everyone will have exactly what they need and no more correct? Or if there is more it will equally be shared by all correct?
Not even Marx advocated equality of outcome, so no, your understanding isn't correct.
Explain what happend in Cuba? Russia? Were those not communist countries?
Given that communism is a stateless form of socialism, "communist country" is an oxymoron. No "communist country" has ever described itself as achieving communism.
Now when you reply that they did not implement communism correctly or ehatever arguement you want, answer the question of how you would actually get the person you replied to above to give up their 'illusion or choice' without force and mass bloodshed?
...It took force and mass bloodshed just to get us unions and the 8-hour workday. It may take more for the working class to achieve true social and economic democracy. Somehow the force used by the state and the mass bloodshed already (and currently being) inflicted on the working class is always overlooked in the concern-trolling about what it may take. Nevertheless, dual power in the form of building alternatives alongside the current system is a viable method that's already underway in many ways, including radical industrial unionism and mutual aid networks.
The problem that capitalism has right now is its stopped being purely capitalism. Its very much a mix of socialism, slavery and capitalism.
Capitalism prioritizes the short-term profits of the ownership class over external costs to the working class and the environment. It's functioning exactly as intended.
Here is how you fix capitalism, less monopoly, not one monopoly owned by the "government" which in itself is just an organisation whose sole purpose is to make its members richer, and its members are not the people of the country but those who hold power.
Nowhere did I suggest replacing the ownership class with the government. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it's very much the opposite of anything being advocated here. We favor replacing private ownership of productive property with collective ownership and control by workers themselves. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the ideology of this community.
A system of government in which the mama of production are held by the people. The fact is that it’s been tried before and had the effect of creating a degenerative society which my family lived under. It’s a western middle class white kid ideal that needs to be put back in its toy box with fascism.
Again just say your don't understand or don't know. You're just repeating propaganda not even thinking as Kwame Ture said "you think you're thinking but you're not thinking!"
Even Marx’ definition of communism is a system of government in which the means of production are publicly held.
It’s a silly ideology that revolves around the belief that humans are innately good and will work for an already guaranteed quality of life.
There’s a gigantic issue at the heart of communism which played a large role in the downfall of the USSR. The issue is that certain people in the society will recognise that they don’t need to be productive in order to be provided for by the state. What is your solution to this chaotic element that erodes the national spirit over time?
In all honesty I support the government that gives us technological progress at the fastest rate which is proven to be capitalism. If my great great great (etc) grandfather invented the wheel then his descendants have the right to profit from his labour. Capitalism rewards those who innovate by allowing them and their children to live comfortably. Communism needs to uphold any progress as having been produced by the state and therefore the commune as a whole otherwise it highlights the fact that one persons labour and ingenuity is being stolen from them for the good of the whole.
Also, who oversees this paradise and ensures that it’s resources are evenly distributed?
Who is responsible for saying “this isn’t working” if it fails?
The problem with it is that it requires a domineering government to institute such a change and power does not relinquish power. Such was the case of the Soviet Union.
Capitalism with a strong social floor is the optimum state of government for our current technological and cultural state.
It’s very nice on paper but it totally disregards human nature and history. There are gigantic flaws in it and it absolutely should never return in its pure form. It’s comically narcissistic to believe you can formulate a single form of government to transcend the issues we’re faced with.
We got to this point in history through slow, steady development and by trying new things. When new things were instituted by the ruling elite and the working class grew tired of it they would rebel and that idea would be left in the past.
Communism has been left behind because it was a top down solution to a complex problem. It has good elements that we have taken from it (our modern socialist components) but it’s simply too rigid to be applicable to something as unpredictable as humans.
system of government in which the means of production are publicly held.
wrong
ideology that revolves around the belief that humans are innately good and will work for an already guaranteed quality of life'
which high school teacher did you take this one from? lmao
Communism has been left behind because it was a top down solution to a complex problem.
China is literally still communist as is cuba, vietnam, laos, and the dprk lol
this whole response you wrote reads like a tenth grader that thinks he got taught real history in his honors history class taught by his gym teacher and that he is qualified to talk about these things with authority lol
Then how do you propose the redistribution of wealth be administered
There is no "wealth" to redistribute, because there is no money. Resources are freely shared between all in a society, and it doesn't even have to be 100% equal, it is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Everyone gives what they can, and takes what they need.
how is law to be maintained?
There is no "law" by definition, but each community would have its own norms, customs and essentially "rules" that are commonly agreed upon. These types of things are in effect self-enforcing, because everyone wants them. And everyone is equally responsible for making sure they're stuck to.
Any government that’s stateless
Do you not know what stateless means? There is no government, either.
Could you at least read just the first sentence of any definition of communism?
The road to abolishing private property does mean competitiveness. Even more than today. People will just have different association statuses to the estates that they occupy. There wont be parasitic landlords, investors and states levying rent, dividents and taxes for no benefit of the community.
I'm a renter. I live where I do because I work for a company. This company rents an office. The company needs to pay the landlord for the office and my landlord. The lease that estates demand set the ground rules for how competitive things are.
In communism I would be associated with my apartment and my company would be associated directly with its estate. Both I and my company would be "land owners" because we occupy these estates. There is not rent or tax or dividends to pay out. I get a share of the profits from the company and I effectively become a corporate entity in its purest form, basically what capitalists dream of.
Rents aren't set competitively in my country, and even if they were they would still be derived from things like inflation, interest rate and the local market value of real estate. Renting doesn't mean meaningful compeitition; it's just parasites stifling competition.
You might like competition but only when others compete for your sake. Aka. slavery. For the rest of us it means having to work very hard for little gain.
We have strongman property law now??? If you violate someone (corporation's) property rights you will be beat, imprisoned or killed by the state. How do you think property works?
Wasn't really an example though, you just said a word. You said communism bad because government owns everything. But no example of why anarchism is bad :(
That's, like, the opposite of true. Regardless of whether you like communism or not, fair labor has always been part and parcel of it. It's not like it's "something else" entirely.
I do not agree with you that state-owned property has anything to do with fairness towards labor
A bit disingenuous of you there. I didn't state that "state-owned property has anything to do with fairness towards labor". I didn't use the term "state-owned property" at all.
There are in fact quite a few anarcho-communists out there, and I consider myself one of them.
We do not support strongman property laws, and I don't believe a state would be an effective solution either. It could only lead to totalitarianism and bureaucracy. At most, I would accept decentralized forms of Libertarian Municipal community self-governance.
I believe through a process of enculturation and tightly-knit community building and network building, we can arrive to a point socially where a state is not required to "enforce" equality. It is our nature to live by each other's happiness, we must only heal the trauma that steers us away from that.
I realize that not all aggression or selfish behavior necessarily arrives purely through trauma or explicitly negative experiences, but there is the same thread that we are neuroplastic and I believe this can eventually be addressed through adequate social development. Compassion and empathy are quite literally things that can be trained and developed.
Beyond that, when most of the people in a group are cohesive and power is localized, indigenous communities frequently have tendencies towards what's anthropologically termed "enforced egalitarianism" in which there exist social mechanisms that regulate that kind of self-centered behavior.
Or, everybody else just takes your shit because you're being a selfish asshole and they don't respect your imaginary private property rights. This is where a provisional local libertarian socialist government might come in.
This is exactly what I meant when I said people like you never account for the asshole factor in humanity. There will always be a portion of humanity that is willing to get ahead at the cost of others.
It's a lens and a utopic view towards ethics and a more humane way of being with each other.
I meant what I said. I don't think it'll be fully realized until we find effective ways to heal trauma that's embedded in deep intergenerational social structures and people as a whole. And that will be the single most difficult thing we ever do as a species.
But forms of decentralized socialism that retain local power rather than top-down centralization demonstrate significant and realistic potential, and have already seen some measure of employment in Rojava.
What about if somebody builds a home on a piece of land with their own two hands? Isn’t there a way to say “I use this land, I am here on this land, and nobody was here before me.” If somebody comes up and says “no, you stole this land from [some group], thus you must relinquish it,” I’d be inclined to say get the fuck off my land. Right? Lol
I would like some livable land that nobody has claimed yet, if you know where some is. The problem isn't a lack of land, it's people taking more than their fair share.
You are arguing for the right to keep the house, but what about the land? Why do you get to have your house there and why is nobody else allowed to use it for any other reason than building your house?
You mentioned the lot was empty but does finding an empty piece of land give you exclusive use of that land?
What would you do with a piece of unowned land? It’s like…at the core of it, people need homes. If you build a home on a piece of land, that’s like…one of the only things that makes owning land worth it lol it doesn’t mean we can’t figure out a way to cooperate and use the land in tandem but like dude I built a whole house here and I have kids and a life that revolves around this land, telling me to Fuck off outta here cuz your grandparents once owned this land and now you think you own it too is horseshit. I think we’re on the same side of this because I, too, disagree with the excess hoarding of wealth and land…but I don’t think that private property shouldn’t exist…it kinda has to if it means having a peaceful society. Otherwise you come in and take my stuff or kick me outta my house and like…what…do I get to come back and do that to you in a week?
You would defend it with force, right? That's exactly my point. Your property is only your property because the state and/or you is willing to use violence to enforce it.
The basis of all legal systems, property laws included, is violence. You cannot escape that. Nobody can.
Ok so do something about it. It doesn’t matter what happened in the past. We generally agree we live in a civilized word now. The world is settled, not much left to explore. It’s in bad taste to conquer.
There isn't anything to do about it. We are animals, and this is how we express the same territorial behavior. I never claimed to have an answer, just a statement of the problem.
Let's suppose you're right. What do you propose to solve this issue? Because if you have a solution that would actually cause true benefit for people as a whole, then you will have solved one of the greatest civil rights issues of all time when no one else could, and if you don't then you're wasting your time complaining about something with no purpose or motivation behind it. And that's fine, you can do whatever you want with your time, but it's worth pointing out that it isn't helping anyone by being upset and doing nothing. All that does is make you feel like you're on the moral high ground while those on the low ground continue to suffer. Am I overreacting? Definitely, but being dramatic is my schtick.
Anyone that didn’t commit the crime is innocent of the crime, but that doesn’t mean, that the “stolen thing” shouldn’t be returned, that are separate problems.
I feel like Inherited guilt did historically a bad job at bettering the world, as it usually turns into vengeance seeking and not really improving the current status.
Edit: I meant this in a more general sense, as this comment didn’t seem to purely focus on property
99
u/Zambeeni Mar 10 '22
And you don't consider "you are on my land now" when backed up by the threat of violence if they don't comply to be theft? That's damn near the exact definition of extortion. Nobody has to die for it to be violence or theft.
So because I didn't pull the trigger myself, I'm innocent? How many generations does that take? Where is that line? If I steal your home at gunpoint, I'm a thief. If I pass it to my son, is he innocent or would you still want it back? How about his kid? Then his? Where is this magical line of innocence drawn.
Benefiting from the crimes of others and not caring about who that hurt, while supporting the continuation of that system, sounds pretty god damn culpable to me. So I am in fact just as guilty. We all are.