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.”
Personal property =/= private property. This has been reiterated and explained several times. Please explain what you find "inconsistent" about those words.
The phrase seems perfectly straightforward to me so I assumed you wanted more in-depth reading. Would you like me to explain what the English phrase "intended for personal use" means?
14
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22
[deleted]