4 ms·

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 w

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.

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.