>>195789>I mean the state meddles with the lives of individuals
in other words, your life and my life, our lives. you are talking about possession, rightful possession. you are ascribing the life of an individual to that individual. you arent saying "the state meddles with life", youre saying the state meddles with the lives of (indicating possession and ownership) individuals. if the state had a right to other peoples things then you would not perceive any meddling as having taken place.
>Private property is a product of the state, that is its whole foundation among other things. If things were owned collectively then there would be no ruling party or rulers
no, private property has no reliance on the existence of a state, there are many examples of hunter gatherer cultures having private property. and private property cant be a product of the state and at the same time its foundation, choose one retard. as for collective ownership, im having trouble envisioning what that would look like, could you provide examples?
>No arguments since we aren't on /pol/
sounds like you just dont want to reply. the argument i made is very valid, do you want me to retype it out replacing the word nigger with african?
>So who is a "worthless nigger" in your definition?
i consider criminals worthless niggers, but niggers dont bother me as much as you think. i used the word to illustrate an example, that is, if people create hungry mouths at a rate faster than at which they can be fed, are people morally obligated to give away what they have, even to the point where everyone starves? and this brings up another point, why dont you blame your parents for endowing you with all these needs? they were the ones who forced you into this situation, if anyone has blame for you starving its them, not rich people.
>If someone does something harmful to me then he is committing aggression towards me, this doesn't have anything to do with morals
and what constitutes harm to you? is it when someone punches you in the stomach? or is it when they punch their own stomach? you believe that there is a distinction between what is yours, and not yours, that is private property, that is morality. if you believed that "yours" and "mine" did not exist then you would not see a difference between someone else getting harmed and yourself getting harmed. when you say "aggression towards me" what youre saying is towards your property, your body. aggression is not when i cut my hand off, i have every right to cut my hand off, its my hand, but when i do it to you, then it is aggression.
>So by your logic you think trannies are natural too because they exist?
when estrogen is in the water supply and men are told not to be men, then trannies will naturally and invariably come to be. and with the state, if a population accepts immorality and acts immorally, statism with naturally and invariably follow. its not natural in the sense that its the ways things are and ought to be, its a natural consequence of immorality.
>Yes, this is how police forces are made
the statement presumed the existence of police. if police already existed there would be no need to make police forces, but you get the point that police forces were created by rulers.
>I don't want anyone to serve me, I want people to serve themselves, unlike you
yes people should serve themselves unless it harms others, and that doesnt mean theyre serving others. you dont have to hold the door open for anyone, you dont have to donate to charity, you need to do the bare minimum of not acting like a savage nigger. other than that your paragraph is almost completely fine.
>If there is no state there is no crime!
the state does not determine what a crime is, regardless of the popular belief that it can. as you yourself have said, harm and aggression are objective concepts, and this is what makes a crime a crime. why would the existence of a state have any effect on the reality of whether something is right or wrong? if you lived in a stateless part of the world and there was a government elsewhere would crime still exist for you? what if you lived within the so called territory of that state, does crime exist then? its nonsensical. either crime objectively exists or it objectively does not. the state is not the arbiter of truth.
>But you feel the need to portray yourself as the good guy at all cost with morality while I'm honest about things
im not portraying myself as the good guy, i dont want to harm people and that makes me a regular person. you on the other hand, want to hurt people and so you argue fervently against objective morality. why is that, got a problem with being the bad guy? if i accept your line of thought, nothing changes for me, if you accept my line of thought, you have a whole lot of work to do on your character.
>We don't need a police for it, the people can take care of it if they understand our points finally
so how do you stop cryptocurrency from being used?
>Money always implies exploitation, inequality, slavery, private property, etc.
lmao, ok, so now you have a problem with exploitation, inequality, and slavery? aside from the fact that you would willingly perpetuate all of those by other means, what do you think is so bad about slavery? is it wrong? what about inequality, whats so bad about that?
>You are a retard, people wrong each other all the time and "aggress" upon each other, that is the nature of the world
great now were getting somewhere, so you do think right and wrong exists, but you just dont care about it.
>Didn't watch it but you claiming my version of anarchy is "mainstream" is just ridiculous
not at all, the video shows people doing whatever they want, killing, stealing, to the masses anarchy is a concept fit for a horror movie. it is exactly what they envision when you say the word "anarchy", people acting like savages and eating each other. it has nothing to do with what self-proclaimed anarchists think, this is what 99% of people on the planet believe anarchy is. among self-proclaimed anarchists the percentage is lower, but my perception is that most self-proclaimed anarchists are either communists or cant rid themselves of all statist tendencies in some other capacity.
>How do you support law enforcement without police or lawmakers, you moron?
i support the universal, natural law of morality. its not idiosyncratic, its integral to anarchy. without morality being unchanging, natural (i.e. having nothing to do with what man thinks of it) and binding upon every soul there is no reasonable basis for anarchy. and "lawmaker" is an oxymoron unless youre using it in reference to a god. laws are, as i described, unchanging, natural, and binding, like gravity. the law of gravity is not the same thing as the "law" of not having a gun that under 18 inches long.
>You claim you want freedom but you are afraid of true freedom and shit your pants at the thought of a truly free world
in both your world and mine i am free to uphold morality by stopping others from aggressing upon me, and others are free to do so too. what would i be so scared of?
>I guess "freedom" for your kind means being able to choose who you slave away for and not actual freedom, owning yourself
i laughed out loud when i read this. owning yourself? where did you hear that one mr.abolish private property? i guess a stopped clock is right twice a day. now think through that "owning yourself" concept to the end and you have true anarchy, thats the key right there. if you own yourself, exclusively, then it is wrong for others to you what you do not consent to, because you are the only one that can decide what can be done with your body and your property. any and all actions done to you and your property are claims of ownership, because one only has a right to his property. therefore any crime committed against another is a form of slavery, no matter how minor. taking 100% of what someone produces is slavery, taking 50% of what someone produces is slavery, and taking 1% of what someone produces is still slavery.
the issue you have with this though is that owning yourself cannot be justified without recognizing that others own themselves too, and it is wrong to violate that principal.
>Most middle-class and upper-class citizens would beg to differ
they would, but they would be wrong. people will be amazed at how foolish they were when they realize guns deter criminals and not phones to dial 911 with. as for the weak people, they will have to band together with the strong for protection, and strong people would band together as well regardless because there is strength in numbers. this isnt theorizing solutions in a grand ideological plan, this is basic human nature. how do you think the old and weak got by before governments were around?
>But that vigilantism itself implies immorality because it is might makes right
no actually, vigilantism implies morality because it comes from the word vigilant, like watchful. as in youre watching for a crime to occur, and then acting from a position of defense against aggression; you arent being vigilant for people who leave their car doors unlocked.
>State Communism and anarchy are two different things. They never wanted anarchy, they wanted proletarian dictatorship.
state communism is an oxymoron, communism necessitates the absence of a state (though they will never achieve that). the communists, wanting to abolish the state in the end, determined that in order to do so they first had to have a transitional period where they have a socialist government. the end goal however, is obviously never reached, and the all powerful state goes on to commit atrocities in the name of the revolution. they do try to get you to forget about the anarchy bit though, like when they did the great purge in the ussr.