• ssboomman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with you there. My point is that a government is not needed to have private property. Governments are inherently violent, but you can be violent without a government.

            • ssboomman@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again, no one said that. All I said was that violence was needed for protecting private property. Not that all forms of violence is useful for it.

              • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re really bad at logic. “You can be violent without a government” does not imply you can necessarily protect private property without a government. Because being violent isn’t enough to protect private property. Only certain forms of violence are (forms which you haven’t done anything to show can be performed without a government).

                • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If I say something is mine and you disagree, a violence happens and whoever is left standing has private property. QED violence enforced property.

          • Cowbee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where is the line drawn between a government and a legitimized systemic form of violence?

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is no line, legitimate violence is just one of the services a government is expected to perform

              • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s only “expected” to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.

                • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you want to pave roads, build bridges, and run charities, the government won’t stop you

    • some pirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      During the years of Spanish provinces in America, some small banks would own the entire land and pay the locals using their own currency only print by them, 1 coin equals 1 day of labor which was nearly enough for 2 meals, then the Spanish kingdom would forgive the landowners taxes if the locals were forced into Christian religion.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And how exactly would one enforce communist principles? What if someone starts hoarding resources?

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You refuse to do the labor needed for their hoarding. You should really learn about models of ownership-by-use. People just aren’t capable of protecting/maintaining/using that much personally.