this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
937 points (98.0% liked)

196

16604 readers
2469 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I specified private property (absentee ownership), which is distinct from personal property (active usage ownership).

A house that I live in: personal property. A house I rent to someone else so they can live in it: private property.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That doesn't change anything, does it? What's stopping people from kicking me out of whatever place I am living in because they want it instead?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The self-defensive mechanisms established by the community I live in.

Anarchism doesn't mean that humans can't form societal structures. It just means that decisions are made bottom-up instead of top-down.

Hierarchical society doesn't stop anyone with "higher rank" from claiming my house e.g. to build a highway or coal mine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? "The self-defensive mechanisms" is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the self-defense mechanisms aren't the same thing as "police", since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.

An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So when you have 150 people in a society and 80 vote for people with red hair should be burned as witches what happens then?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don't think that's a realistic scenario, though.

If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That's akin to saying "what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?" It's unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.