8 ms·

Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. They expect people to build and maintain homes for them while doing nothing in return. If

Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. They expect people to build and maintain homes for them while doing nothing in return. If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. These misguided ideologies can only live parasitic ally on the fringe of a otherwise functional society. If they got their way, the society would be destroyed.

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas, they are rebels that created a stateless society of 300 000 in Chiapas, Mexico without private property with structure that is based on decentralized, horizontal, federated institutions. Anarchism is not a misguided ideology, it's a product of highest levels of freethought that inspired many people to fight for liberation from oppression and for a world where every human can develop the the heights of one's potential.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.
    - Vegenoid 2y ago
      Now you have a group (or multiple groups) of people that will use violence to prevent people from doing the things that they feel are wrong. Probably they'll decide on what those things that are worth using violence to prevent are, and probably they'll write them down so that everyone is on the same page. If they don't do that, then they are using violence for arbitrary and undefined reasons, which most people don't want. I think I see where this is going... What is the vision for this scenario that doesn't just turn into new groups taking power and enforcing their rules?
      - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        The most important difference is everyone could create such a group without main authority monopolizing violence. Some would try to recreate current authoritarian relations, while others would oppose them.
        Vegenoid 2y ago
        It's a nice thought, many small bands of people each doing their own thing. But I don't see why people think it would turn out differently than it has turned out before, which is some groups becoming large and powerful enough that they push out, destroy, or absorb other groups, until they become large and powerful enough that they're just called government.
    - jjav 2y ago
      > Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved. Did you realize you just came up with the system you were opposing? We can organize into some groups, let's call them countries, with an organized self-defense groups, we can call them police and military, to prevent our yurts from being stolen.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. There were breif periods where humans entered virgin land, but these people migrated because other land and resources were spoken for. >Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any. Rights don't derive from wants or needs. My wanting a pony does not give me a natural right to a pony. My hunger does not give me a natural right to food >It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    > That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history. > Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us. >This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any. Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them? > Rights don't derive from wants or needs. From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights? > The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose. Please share your sources for this statement.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Bonobos are not pacifist. There is less violence within the troop, but they will still kill and maim, especially in the case of territorial disputes. Groups of humans have always organized for Mutual Aid, but it has never been unilateral or not subject to the approval of the group. Norms around private property are different across time and depend on the level of abundance. At no point could a strange human come and take your possessions huts, or food without permission.
- blackhawkC17 2y ago
  Chiapas is the poorest and most backward state in Mexico [1]. There's nothing worth emulating in it. 1- https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-poor https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-p...
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. You have to always consider local conditions and if you can see that certain ideas help some part of some territory develop better then alternatives then it's a strong argument for them. Especially considering that rebels are fighting against colonially motivated genocide.
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      > Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. Of course, the corrupt ruling bandits always enjoy a higher standard of living than their subjects. The same story in every anarchist and communist society.
      - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
        Zapatistas are organized Indigenous Americans, they are fighting against genocide. Why for you people who fight for their own survival are bandits? Do you think that people who were committing the genocide are fine? Do you approve of genocide of Indigenous Americans? If so, then that's disgusting.
- jjav 2y ago
  > For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. In those same times, anyone that wandered by who was stronger could simply kill them and take over the yurt, until someone stronger showed and killed them in turn. Not a great way to live, and not a very long life.
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    How is that different to the current society, except that now if you put up a yurt somewhere you will get harassed by police?
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there." You can still put up your yurt or hut in many places of the Earth, probably including Chiapas, but it seems that more people want to live in London, Munich, Tokio or Barcelona. Show me a place with a stateless society and without private property that actually attracts nontrivial amounts of people. You speak of such places highly and reverently, but for all their highest level of freethought, they don't seem to compete well with traditional urban centers of the capitalist world. When voting with their feet, people mostly move to wealthy countries that protect personal property, not away from them.
rakoo 2y ago
> while doing nothing in return If you could see the extent of organization that such a life requires, you wouldn't say that. Especially when the alternative is "I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  > "I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing. It is when you skip out the bit where you have to pay the mortgage or had to save up to buy the place.
  - rakoo 2y ago
    And how do you save up when you can't even have a roof over your head
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >"I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing. How can that be worse than "I didnt even buy this place, and now I get to live here"
  - rakoo 2y ago
    How can that be worse than "there are millions of unoccupied places, most housing belongs to the same people who don't need it, and yet there are millions living in the street" It's not just about you
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      the claim is who is doing "nothing". Working, saving, and buying a house is doing a lot more than doing nothing and expecting something
      - rakoo 2y ago
Dylan16807 2y ago
> If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. I'm pretty sure they're talking about real property. Land and improvements. Not the strong taking away everything you have. And there are reasonable ways to manage land and housing other than private ownership. There's also the option of limiting it to personal use.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >I'm pretty sure they're talking about real property. Land and improvements. Not the strong taking away everything you have. An individual has to be very careful not to create any real property value or improvements, otherwise it will be taken from you. Conceptually there are lots of solutions to managing this problem. Historically, they rely on a state institution that goes around stripping people of what they create, forcing people to create things they don't own. Communism almost always devolves into totalitarianism for this reason.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > An individual has to be very careful not to create any real property value or improvements, otherwise it will be taken from you. This is the experience of the vast majority of renters. It's not too bad. And something like "you can own X amount of house" doesn't require going anywhere near communism.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >This is the experience of the vast majority of renters. It's not too bad. I think it is terrible. I like to be productive and crate value. Absolutely miserable without it. I hated being a renter for this reason. >And something like "you can own X amount of house" doesn't require going anywhere near communism. There are so many better ways to solve this problem than putting a cap on value creation.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
kerkeslager 2y ago
> Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. Holding other people's basic survival need for ransom is simply theft and entitlement. What makes you think that people are going through all the complexity of squatting if they have the options of paying for a place to live? > If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. Anarchy where the strong (rich) take whatever they can is the situation we have now. Property rights as they currently exist are that rich people have property rights and nobody else does. Unless you start talking solutions to homelessness, it starts to sound like you just don't care about the homeless and you're only interested in maintaining the power that exists.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I support cheap and affordable housing. I support charity for people that are honest members of society. I think unrepentant thieves need to be incarcerated, not because they deserve a housing, but to protect innocent people from their destructive Behavior. >Quoting so you can't retract. I don't think you'll find much agreement there. I think you'll find that you are in the minority. Look at laws for felony theft. I think most people would like even harsher penalties people that steal assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. All it takes is seeing it once and people swing very quickly against this kind of behavior. You being hungry does not entitle you to my dinner. You being horny does not entitle you to my body. You being cold does not entitle you to my shelter.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        > I think you'll find that you are in the minority. Look at laws for felony theft. I think the laws for felony theft as compared to the laws for murder and rape are pretty solid evidence that rape and murder are considered more serious crimes than theft. And that's setting aside that there are plenty of theft laws that are even less serious than felony theft. In cases where people are stealing to meet their basic needs such as food or housing, it's not uncommon for perpetrators to receive lenient sentences including probation with no prison time. What's your argument for landlordism not being theft? Shouldn't those people get a job too? Or is theft only a crime when poor people do it?

TotalCrackpot 2y ago

For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. How is the current system not strong taking whatever they can? Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas, they are rebels that created a stateless society of 300 000 in Chiapas, Mexico without private property with structure that is based on decentralized, horizontal, federated institutions. Anarchism is not a misguided ideology, it's a product of highest levels of freethought that inspired many people to fight for liberation from oppression and for a world where every human can develop the the heights of one's potential.

ensignavenger 2y ago
For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    Now you have a group (or multiple groups) of people that will use violence to prevent people from doing the things that they feel are wrong. Probably they'll decide on what those things that are worth using violence to prevent are, and probably they'll write them down so that everyone is on the same page. If they don't do that, then they are using violence for arbitrary and undefined reasons, which most people don't want. I think I see where this is going... What is the vision for this scenario that doesn't just turn into new groups taking power and enforcing their rules?
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      The most important difference is everyone could create such a group without main authority monopolizing violence. Some would try to recreate current authoritarian relations, while others would oppose them.
      - Vegenoid 2y ago
        It's a nice thought, many small bands of people each doing their own thing. But I don't see why people think it would turn out differently than it has turned out before, which is some groups becoming large and powerful enough that they push out, destroy, or absorb other groups, until they become large and powerful enough that they're just called government.
  - jjav 2y ago
    > Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved. Did you realize you just came up with the system you were opposing? We can organize into some groups, let's call them countries, with an organized self-defense groups, we can call them police and military, to prevent our yurts from being stolen.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. There were breif periods where humans entered virgin land, but these people migrated because other land and resources were spoken for. >Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival. This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any. Rights don't derive from wants or needs. My wanting a pony does not give me a natural right to a pony. My hunger does not give me a natural right to food >It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  > That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history. > Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us. >This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any. Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them? > Rights don't derive from wants or needs. From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights? > The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose. Please share your sources for this statement.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Bonobos are not pacifist. There is less violence within the troop, but they will still kill and maim, especially in the case of territorial disputes. Groups of humans have always organized for Mutual Aid, but it has never been unilateral or not subject to the approval of the group. Norms around private property are different across time and depend on the level of abundance. At no point could a strange human come and take your possessions huts, or food without permission.
blackhawkC17 2y ago
Chiapas is the poorest and most backward state in Mexico [1]. There's nothing worth emulating in it. 1- https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-poor https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-p...
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. You have to always consider local conditions and if you can see that certain ideas help some part of some territory develop better then alternatives then it's a strong argument for them. Especially considering that rebels are fighting against colonially motivated genocide.
  - blackhawkC17 2y ago
    > Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. Of course, the corrupt ruling bandits always enjoy a higher standard of living than their subjects. The same story in every anarchist and communist society.
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      Zapatistas are organized Indigenous Americans, they are fighting against genocide. Why for you people who fight for their own survival are bandits? Do you think that people who were committing the genocide are fine? Do you approve of genocide of Indigenous Americans? If so, then that's disgusting.
jjav 2y ago
> For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there. In those same times, anyone that wandered by who was stronger could simply kill them and take over the yurt, until someone stronger showed and killed them in turn. Not a great way to live, and not a very long life.
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  How is that different to the current society, except that now if you put up a yurt somewhere you will get harassed by police?
inglor_cz 2y ago
"For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there." You can still put up your yurt or hut in many places of the Earth, probably including Chiapas, but it seems that more people want to live in London, Munich, Tokio or Barcelona. Show me a place with a stateless society and without private property that actually attracts nontrivial amounts of people. You speak of such places highly and reverently, but for all their highest level of freethought, they don't seem to compete well with traditional urban centers of the capitalist world. When voting with their feet, people mostly move to wealthy countries that protect personal property, not away from them.

rakoo 2y ago

> while doing nothing in return If you could see the extent of organization that such a life requires, you wouldn't say that. Especially when the alternative is "I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing.

lostlogin 2y ago
> "I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing. It is when you skip out the bit where you have to pay the mortgage or had to save up to buy the place.
- rakoo 2y ago
  And how do you save up when you can't even have a roof over your head
s1artibartfast 2y ago
>"I bought this place and now you have to pay to live there" which is the highest form of doing nothing. How can that be worse than "I didnt even buy this place, and now I get to live here"
- rakoo 2y ago
  How can that be worse than "there are millions of unoccupied places, most housing belongs to the same people who don't need it, and yet there are millions living in the street" It's not just about you
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    the claim is who is doing "nothing". Working, saving, and buying a house is doing a lot more than doing nothing and expecting something
    - rakoo 2y ago

Dylan16807 2y ago

> If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. I'm pretty sure they're talking about real property. Land and improvements. Not the strong taking away everything you have. And there are reasonable ways to manage land and housing other than private ownership. There's also the option of limiting it to personal use.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>I'm pretty sure they're talking about real property. Land and improvements. Not the strong taking away everything you have. An individual has to be very careful not to create any real property value or improvements, otherwise it will be taken from you. Conceptually there are lots of solutions to managing this problem. Historically, they rely on a state institution that goes around stripping people of what they create, forcing people to create things they don't own. Communism almost always devolves into totalitarianism for this reason.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > An individual has to be very careful not to create any real property value or improvements, otherwise it will be taken from you. This is the experience of the vast majority of renters. It's not too bad. And something like "you can own X amount of house" doesn't require going anywhere near communism.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >This is the experience of the vast majority of renters. It's not too bad. I think it is terrible. I like to be productive and crate value. Absolutely miserable without it. I hated being a renter for this reason. >And something like "you can own X amount of house" doesn't require going anywhere near communism. There are so many better ways to solve this problem than putting a cap on value creation.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago

kerkeslager 2y ago

> Refusing to pay for a place to live is simply theft and entitlement. Holding other people's basic survival need for ransom is simply theft and entitlement. What makes you think that people are going through all the complexity of squatting if they have the options of paying for a place to live? > If you abolish property rights, your two options are state slavery or anarchy where the strong take whatever they can. Anarchy where the strong (rich) take whatever they can is the situation we have now. Property rights as they currently exist are that rich people have property rights and nobody else does. Unless you start talking solutions to homelessness, it starts to sound like you just don't care about the homeless and you're only interested in maintaining the power that exists.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
[flagged]
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I support cheap and affordable housing. I support charity for people that are honest members of society. I think unrepentant thieves need to be incarcerated, not because they deserve a housing, but to protect innocent people from their destructive Behavior. >Quoting so you can't retract. I don't think you'll find much agreement there. I think you'll find that you are in the minority. Look at laws for felony theft. I think most people would like even harsher penalties people that steal assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. All it takes is seeing it once and people swing very quickly against this kind of behavior. You being hungry does not entitle you to my dinner. You being horny does not entitle you to my body. You being cold does not entitle you to my shelter.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > I think you'll find that you are in the minority. Look at laws for felony theft. I think the laws for felony theft as compared to the laws for murder and rape are pretty solid evidence that rape and murder are considered more serious crimes than theft. And that's setting aside that there are plenty of theft laws that are even less serious than felony theft. In cases where people are stealing to meet their basic needs such as food or housing, it's not uncommon for perpetrators to receive lenient sentences including probation with no prison time. What's your argument for landlordism not being theft? Shouldn't those people get a job too? Or is theft only a crime when poor people do it?