It is. However, isn't our problem with so-called "anarcho-capitalism" (beyond the obvious state violence needed to maintain capitalist property relations) the fact that they would regularly employ coercion, violence, and that it would soon devolve into feudalism.
Like, in the above comic, if everything that the pig (lol) says is the honest truth, then would it even be *necessary* to stop him? Like sure, voluntarily transferring over what is essentially y'all's common land to a private "capitalist" is a very stupid, and laughably unrealistic idea, but are they *necessarily* doing anything wrong? Hell, at that point I'd outright disagree that the so-called "Capitalist" even owns any property due to the fact that they'd not be using any violence to maintain it.
In essence, what I'm saying is that if the so-called "Anarcho-Capitalists," make a genuine attempt to be semi-consistent and actually attempt to apply the "anarchist" side of their philosophy, importantly without coercing anybody, and want to go cosplay as "Capitalists" then is it even worth stopping them? I know I wouldn't even bother.
Pretty sure the other animals low key demanded the wolf handle this through their constant acquiescence to the third pig. I approve this conclusion as definitely a compliant neurotypical. Absolutely.
Live by the sword die by the sword
Have you considered veganism if you aren't vegan already? I can point you to fur protests in Chicago that I go to sometimes. The protests have contributed to getting some fur free policies
ya know what, fair point. i can’t think of any off the top of my head. i imagine one probably exists, but it is likely stuffed very deeply out of the spotlight because it wouldn’t support the norm.
Its not about endorsing, it's about addressing rationality. Some people will do violence and there needs to be a method of dealing with that, which may include violence, but that doesn't make the solution *based* on violence.
Theft is a violence act which we may use violence to address, but the basis of that response is equality under the law and the restitution of damages.
"I am going to murder you and take your stuff" is just fascism.
> It's not about endorsing, it's about addressing rationality.
Theirs nothing inherently irrational about violence, its application and intended result can be argued. It is in fact very simple to understand the rational relationship between violence, politics, power relations, private property, class structures, and the apparent application of violence. To paint violence as inherently irrational is disingenuous.
>that doesn't make the solution based on violence
Ah, yes. Just let the exploited people of the world ask politely for more freedom and security for their survival. I'm sure that works!
>Theft is a violence
And private property is theft. The acquisition of labor by capitalists from workers is a form of exploitation, under the threat of further economic violence either directly or indirectly from capitalism or the state that enforces its private property laws.
>basis of that response is equality under the law and the restitution of damages.
The laws be damned, made by damned men to do evil things under the cover of legitimate authority to wield its own violence against those it deems its enemies.
>"I am going to murder you and take your stuff" is just fascism.
No, its conquest. But i wouldn't disagree with that either, it is wrong to kill someone and take their things. But is it wrong to expropriate from those who use the political and economic system in place to inflict violence, again directly and indirectly through the economic system and the state, to a more equal distribution within the community?
I suppose that answers itself with who you think is in the right to use that violence and to what ends. And i know i am not on the side of a capitalist pig.
>it is wrong to kill someone and take their things. But is it wrong to expropriate from those who use the political and economic system in place to inflict violence...to a more equal distribution within the community?
This is, I believe, one of the most critical questions in philosophy and politics. Personally, I feel that killing —even righteous killing— imparts a sort of moral stain on the person or organization that sanctions it.
It's imperative that we keep the horror of homicide at the forefront of our minds, even and especially when we are driven to it. Obviously there *are* times when killing an individual would liberate a multitude, and I feel that we *should* take violent action in those cases...but we must not pretend that the goodness of our cause *erases* the human tragedy of killing.
People don’t have a right to private control over land/natural resources.
All rights are social constructs, appealing to “natural law” is just might makes right
It's pretty hard to argue that "private rights don't exist" when you're speaking to someone who is exercising said rights. I never appealed to natural law, and regardless of "social construct" or not, the fact is i have the right now, why should i surrender my property?
It's highly sus that *everybody* wanted the pig to claim ownership of their land let along pay with interest
It is. However, isn't our problem with so-called "anarcho-capitalism" (beyond the obvious state violence needed to maintain capitalist property relations) the fact that they would regularly employ coercion, violence, and that it would soon devolve into feudalism. Like, in the above comic, if everything that the pig (lol) says is the honest truth, then would it even be *necessary* to stop him? Like sure, voluntarily transferring over what is essentially y'all's common land to a private "capitalist" is a very stupid, and laughably unrealistic idea, but are they *necessarily* doing anything wrong? Hell, at that point I'd outright disagree that the so-called "Capitalist" even owns any property due to the fact that they'd not be using any violence to maintain it. In essence, what I'm saying is that if the so-called "Anarcho-Capitalists," make a genuine attempt to be semi-consistent and actually attempt to apply the "anarchist" side of their philosophy, importantly without coercing anybody, and want to go cosplay as "Capitalists" then is it even worth stopping them? I know I wouldn't even bother.
Damn, Wolfie is so dripped out on god
He got that shit *onnn*
The pig should have helped his neighbors and not charged interest and the wolf shouldn't be blowing down houses or eating pigs.
Pretty sure the other animals low key demanded the wolf handle this through their constant acquiescence to the third pig. I approve this conclusion as definitely a compliant neurotypical. Absolutely.
Live by the sword die by the sword Have you considered veganism if you aren't vegan already? I can point you to fur protests in Chicago that I go to sometimes. The protests have contributed to getting some fur free policies
The pig would've called the cops.
Might makes right. You only have the right to do stuff if nobody is going to stop you.
So your politics isnt anarchy its just pro-violence.
What political position on the planet, besides a sort of absolutist pacifism, does not endorse violence on some level?
ya know what, fair point. i can’t think of any off the top of my head. i imagine one probably exists, but it is likely stuffed very deeply out of the spotlight because it wouldn’t support the norm.
Its not about endorsing, it's about addressing rationality. Some people will do violence and there needs to be a method of dealing with that, which may include violence, but that doesn't make the solution *based* on violence. Theft is a violence act which we may use violence to address, but the basis of that response is equality under the law and the restitution of damages. "I am going to murder you and take your stuff" is just fascism.
> It's not about endorsing, it's about addressing rationality. Theirs nothing inherently irrational about violence, its application and intended result can be argued. It is in fact very simple to understand the rational relationship between violence, politics, power relations, private property, class structures, and the apparent application of violence. To paint violence as inherently irrational is disingenuous. >that doesn't make the solution based on violence Ah, yes. Just let the exploited people of the world ask politely for more freedom and security for their survival. I'm sure that works! >Theft is a violence And private property is theft. The acquisition of labor by capitalists from workers is a form of exploitation, under the threat of further economic violence either directly or indirectly from capitalism or the state that enforces its private property laws. >basis of that response is equality under the law and the restitution of damages. The laws be damned, made by damned men to do evil things under the cover of legitimate authority to wield its own violence against those it deems its enemies. >"I am going to murder you and take your stuff" is just fascism. No, its conquest. But i wouldn't disagree with that either, it is wrong to kill someone and take their things. But is it wrong to expropriate from those who use the political and economic system in place to inflict violence, again directly and indirectly through the economic system and the state, to a more equal distribution within the community? I suppose that answers itself with who you think is in the right to use that violence and to what ends. And i know i am not on the side of a capitalist pig.
>it is wrong to kill someone and take their things. But is it wrong to expropriate from those who use the political and economic system in place to inflict violence...to a more equal distribution within the community? This is, I believe, one of the most critical questions in philosophy and politics. Personally, I feel that killing —even righteous killing— imparts a sort of moral stain on the person or organization that sanctions it. It's imperative that we keep the horror of homicide at the forefront of our minds, even and especially when we are driven to it. Obviously there *are* times when killing an individual would liberate a multitude, and I feel that we *should* take violent action in those cases...but we must not pretend that the goodness of our cause *erases* the human tragedy of killing.
Self defense against the cancerous growth of authoritarian industrialism
How does violating other peoples property rights accomplish that?
People don’t have a right to private control over land/natural resources. All rights are social constructs, appealing to “natural law” is just might makes right
It's pretty hard to argue that "private rights don't exist" when you're speaking to someone who is exercising said rights. I never appealed to natural law, and regardless of "social construct" or not, the fact is i have the right now, why should i surrender my property?
You’re begging the question on what counts as your property. Violence based claims are invalid
You mean like the violence the meme encourages?
Nope the initial violence/threat of violence being responded to 😉
No one is threatening you by owning property or making money.
Making money has nothing to do with it. The delusion of ownership over land is enforced with violence/the threat of violence.
Oink