4 ms·
That's a bit of a strawman, since I said nothing about the securing of property. As you are undoubtedly aware, government does not allow a choice in this, but y
by noarchy 14y ago
That's a bit of a strawman, since I said nothing about the securing of property. As you are undoubtedly aware, government does not allow a choice in this, but you're likely taking a position that it must be this way. You're also taking the rather weak stance that existing precedent doesn't allow for any other way. That kind of thinking serves governments well (they don't think well outside of the box), but not private individuals and groups.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoNo, I'm taking the stance that bourgeois governments are the result of a long historical process whereby the mighty displaced the weak and stole their property until there was eventually only one ruler, who enforced the property regime of their liking.
- noarchy 14y agoSomething to that effect has undoubtedly occurred. I think that things can work differently. Do you? We've had a chance to see a number of government experiments run their course (some continue to), ranging from absolute monarchies, to Marxist-Leninists, to Maoists, to various kinds of republics. All of them have ended up going in similar directions, over time, consolidating power, though at different speeds.