I am more or less a communist and my gestation consisted of being an anarcho-capitalist that could not figure out how acquiring land ownership did not violate the NAP. I was "born" after a year or so of asking other AnCaps about this contradiction and hearing only increasingly apologist reactionary bullshit conservative answers that sounded like daddy issues.
Why? Even monkeys recognize and revolt against being cheated- people that are barely conscious will yet reorient their entire physiology as a reflex against aggression, so like all things that live necessarily recognize and resist aggression.
Quite obvious, to be sure. Nobody wants to be cheated. Organisms in social hierarchies learn to reorient their behavior reflexively to prevent aggression from the group against them. Entering a social hierarchy is an act of submission. But where aggression benefits one, an organism does not resist it, at least directly. Often, the powerful will use others to exert their aggression, and those subordinates will engage in the aggressive act because of cognitive dissonance: they were given this task by an authority, an authority who may have a great deal to say about their well-being, so they adhere to the hierarchy and follow rules.
There is no world in which human beings live ruggedly individually in a live-let live manner. The majority of people desire to be led, and humans have evolved as organisms whose survival normally requires the formation of communities where individuals can task-specialize. This always involves power structures. If you put enough people together, power centers always develop, and people will wield that power. I'll paste some words I had about this in another thread some time ago, which might help clarify my position:
It's human nature. A certain subset of the population will always be led, and power centers always develop. Those centers develop momentum and a life of their own. Libertarianism is all fine and dandy for the five minutes it is successful. And then after that five minutes, a group of 300 guys shows up to your property and says it's theirs. I don't care how many guns, or how much ammo you have, it won't matter.
And there you'll be standing: "BUT GUYS, we all agreed to live and let live remember?"
And then the 299 of those guys - who couldn't figure out what the fuck to do without being led by someone - looks at their built-to-do-this-by-millions-of-years-of-evolution leader and he just smiles.
There will always be government. Coerced or otherwise. Humans don't live and let live. Which is why government's ideal task is to set up a cooperative game, where we don't kill each other. It's just that ours has been rigged. It's far from perfect, but I'm afraid it is always going to be. Incremental improvement is all we can hope for, and to weather the bumps in the road.
The union prior to god damned Lincoln was probably the most libertarian situation we could hope for, and ideal to what we have now. We need to return to a union of states, this nation shit is too vulnerable.
Imagine 3 people in the entire global population - even though this is unrealistic. NAP is the equivalent of "Everybody be nice to everybody." This is great in theory, until two of the three decide they don't like how the other guy is doing things, and think they'd be better off if they took what was his. NAP requires a world in which every person is a completely self-sufficient and morally incorruptible human person absent of ANY of the evolved mechanisms they possess to submit to dominance or power. If this world was a possible world, there would be no socio-sexual hierarchies in our societies. But we know that there are. Some men are always going to be more powerful than others, and those men will gather many around them, and they will enforce their culture/narrative.
Another reason that I drifted away from the libertarians. Not libertarianISM but the people themselves never seem to want to have the conversation where I ask, "but this means for society to work, the 200 million [i]idiots[/i] that are barely human have to really step up and become more than that, when in fact the illuminati are right, so how do you reconcile that?"
But, the inevitable/property of homo sapiens emergence of leadership inner circles does not mean anything about land, except as a net negative to me, a descendant of landless peasants. In a market system with entrenched ownership of land, my birth is literally a sentence to gratify the economic interests of the landowners, whatever those interests may be. I have summed it up on social media arguments with a sarcastic reduction of the whole ideology to, "oh you are thirsty, baby? Get a job" Land ownership turns the entire social order into, "work is freedom." AND THEY AGREE!!! It's madness
Because there is no means to acquire ownership of land except by coercion, even if it's only in profiteering from the original coercion that seized it.
Who are the landlords on the planet? spoiler alert- they seized land with armies and forced famines
Furthermore the concept of property ownership as an extension of self ownership doesn't really make sense for land, because no one made it. It's not the same thing as your arm or your labor or your planning, the fruits of which are observably a part of you the person.
Which is not to say that people living on a space do not therefore have claim to it- but, "to live" and "to own" are different concepts. I can't reconcile it and it seems like land ownership would be the basis of any market system.
The first point you make is a fair one. You can't make land per se, but you can make land livable or farmable through investment of your own resources.
There was a time when you could just show up and claim unused land. The people who did that often had hard lives spent just making it into something usable. Do they and their families not deserve to be compensated when you come to take part of it?
This is, as you pointed out, not always the case, but the question of how we get from here to wherever applies to all systems other than the status quo.
You need to be practical and say pure ancap doesn't work then just assume we are not talking about that. You claim to be a communist, yet I assume you do not agree 100% with every communist theory ever proposed because you surely are smart enough to see some parts of it would never work.
So this is something I find kind of funny. In a lot of families, it's not that weird for older kids to still live within the family home. It's not seen as shameful or weird; they leave when they meet someone they want to start a new household with, and until that time comes they don't waste money. But young white males seem to have a real complex about still being at home, they don't take part in their household and view their family as a community. They feel like failures for moving out and pay over the odds when they could still be eating mama's spaghetti and saving on rent, maybe putting that money into a business or studying.
I mean don't get me wrong; my mama is a boomer; I moved out at 19 and never looked back. But some people seem to have good families and could leave home later with more resources, and they feel guilty about taking advantage of it? That part I don't get.
I stayed with the family until 27. Helped with bills and help make their life easier. Saved thousands fast. When I was nice and set I used the VA home loan. I did leave immediately for 5 years active duty, but when I came home I saw through the bullshit programming of abandoning your family to spend more on rent than a mortgage. Now I have a nice egg nest and the only debt is this land, while all my peers continue to rack up debt, no where near buying a house, and have been forking over 1200-1600 just for a decent place or less and living with a shitty roommate. Feels good man.
Finnish American Military family. Everyone’s fucked in the head but yea, I’d say they are good people. Those that aren’t, like my faggot cousin, get disowned.
i grew up with helicopter parents and moved out when i was 21. they were fucking pissed and it was one of the best decisions that i'd ever made. i cannot even imagine how pathetic you'd have to be to be 30 and still not knowing what the fuck to do with your life.
"Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party which wielded the supreme power contained 3 Russians including Lenin and 9 Jews. The next body in importance the Central Committee of the Executive Commission or secret police comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others.
The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others, the Moscow Che-ka Secret Police was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others, among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.”
"Jews Engineered the 1917 Russian Revolution, they killed 66 million Christians burnt their churches & built synagogues, at no other time in the history of the world has a country been so saturated with Jewish influence as the Soviet Union 1917 to 1953.
You must understand the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians they hated Russians, they hated Christians, driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.
It cannot be overstated, Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time, the fact that the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 200 years together.
Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship.
They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”
According to Donald Rayfield, in 1922 the Jews “reached their maximum representation in the party not that they formed a coherent group when at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”
The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”
On June 9, 1919 Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government: “… (T)here were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews, of the latter 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”
The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus.
The Cheka which writes Brendon, “consisted of 250,000 officers including 100,000 border guards, a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away.
In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000, moreover the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”
Posted automatically (#64464) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @RexYehudi)
Posted automatically (#59175) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @MartinTimothy)
Posted automatically (#58043) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @MartinTimothy)
Posted automatically (#58040) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Quasiman)
Posted automatically (#58032) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Quasiman)
Posted automatically (#57797) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your anonymous crosslink notifications)
Posted automatically (#56385) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @RoxannaHardbutt)
Èxactly. From what I've read most Europeans have no problems paying ridiculously high taxes for their social programs. Up until now their countries have been homogeneous though.
This is kind of what I've come to it conclusion of. When normies ask and I can't/won't respond with "niggers" I say that there are too many cultural differences for socialism to work. The reason why European stuff works is because they tend to have homogeneous cultures. Of course it all flies over their heads, but I try.
gomeganow ago
You ain't kidding - the cellar dwelling marxists will be the death of ALL economies.
May they ROT IN HELL!!!!
Lynch_Tree ago
But I thought people in Silicon Valley were really, really smart.
DishingShitLikeA ago
You got me. First LOL of the day.
CornyGoatWeed ago
I am more or less a communist and my gestation consisted of being an anarcho-capitalist that could not figure out how acquiring land ownership did not violate the NAP. I was "born" after a year or so of asking other AnCaps about this contradiction and hearing only increasingly apologist reactionary bullshit conservative answers that sounded like daddy issues.
chirogonemd ago
The NAP is as much of an idiotic utopian fantasy as any facet of Communism.
CornyGoatWeed ago
Why? Even monkeys recognize and revolt against being cheated- people that are barely conscious will yet reorient their entire physiology as a reflex against aggression, so like all things that live necessarily recognize and resist aggression.
chirogonemd ago
Quite obvious, to be sure. Nobody wants to be cheated. Organisms in social hierarchies learn to reorient their behavior reflexively to prevent aggression from the group against them. Entering a social hierarchy is an act of submission. But where aggression benefits one, an organism does not resist it, at least directly. Often, the powerful will use others to exert their aggression, and those subordinates will engage in the aggressive act because of cognitive dissonance: they were given this task by an authority, an authority who may have a great deal to say about their well-being, so they adhere to the hierarchy and follow rules.
There is no world in which human beings live ruggedly individually in a live-let live manner. The majority of people desire to be led, and humans have evolved as organisms whose survival normally requires the formation of communities where individuals can task-specialize. This always involves power structures. If you put enough people together, power centers always develop, and people will wield that power. I'll paste some words I had about this in another thread some time ago, which might help clarify my position:
Imagine 3 people in the entire global population - even though this is unrealistic. NAP is the equivalent of "Everybody be nice to everybody." This is great in theory, until two of the three decide they don't like how the other guy is doing things, and think they'd be better off if they took what was his. NAP requires a world in which every person is a completely self-sufficient and morally incorruptible human person absent of ANY of the evolved mechanisms they possess to submit to dominance or power. If this world was a possible world, there would be no socio-sexual hierarchies in our societies. But we know that there are. Some men are always going to be more powerful than others, and those men will gather many around them, and they will enforce their culture/narrative.
CornyGoatWeed ago
Another reason that I drifted away from the libertarians. Not libertarianISM but the people themselves never seem to want to have the conversation where I ask, "but this means for society to work, the 200 million [i]idiots[/i] that are barely human have to really step up and become more than that, when in fact the illuminati are right, so how do you reconcile that?"
But, the inevitable/property of homo sapiens emergence of leadership inner circles does not mean anything about land, except as a net negative to me, a descendant of landless peasants. In a market system with entrenched ownership of land, my birth is literally a sentence to gratify the economic interests of the landowners, whatever those interests may be. I have summed it up on social media arguments with a sarcastic reduction of the whole ideology to, "oh you are thirsty, baby? Get a job" Land ownership turns the entire social order into, "work is freedom." AND THEY AGREE!!! It's madness
Element115 ago
Sorry, how does that violate the NAP? "I'd like to trade goods or services for some of your land" is not aggression.
CornyGoatWeed ago
Because there is no means to acquire ownership of land except by coercion, even if it's only in profiteering from the original coercion that seized it.
Who are the landlords on the planet? spoiler alert- they seized land with armies and forced famines
Furthermore the concept of property ownership as an extension of self ownership doesn't really make sense for land, because no one made it. It's not the same thing as your arm or your labor or your planning, the fruits of which are observably a part of you the person.
Which is not to say that people living on a space do not therefore have claim to it- but, "to live" and "to own" are different concepts. I can't reconcile it and it seems like land ownership would be the basis of any market system.
Element115 ago
The first point you make is a fair one. You can't make land per se, but you can make land livable or farmable through investment of your own resources.
There was a time when you could just show up and claim unused land. The people who did that often had hard lives spent just making it into something usable. Do they and their families not deserve to be compensated when you come to take part of it?
This is, as you pointed out, not always the case, but the question of how we get from here to wherever applies to all systems other than the status quo.
You need to be practical and say pure ancap doesn't work then just assume we are not talking about that. You claim to be a communist, yet I assume you do not agree 100% with every communist theory ever proposed because you surely are smart enough to see some parts of it would never work.
carlip ago
I like the balloon bit on the shoulder, like a chip!
ForTheUltimate ago
No. You're trivializing a simple process of genetics that also creates you niggerfaggot natsocs.
GingersAreEvil ago
People sometimes accept the price of living life on their terms.
GingersAreEvil ago
So this is something I find kind of funny. In a lot of families, it's not that weird for older kids to still live within the family home. It's not seen as shameful or weird; they leave when they meet someone they want to start a new household with, and until that time comes they don't waste money. But young white males seem to have a real complex about still being at home, they don't take part in their household and view their family as a community. They feel like failures for moving out and pay over the odds when they could still be eating mama's spaghetti and saving on rent, maybe putting that money into a business or studying.
I mean don't get me wrong; my mama is a boomer; I moved out at 19 and never looked back. But some people seem to have good families and could leave home later with more resources, and they feel guilty about taking advantage of it? That part I don't get.
MoteMoteKek11 ago
I stayed with the family until 27. Helped with bills and help make their life easier. Saved thousands fast. When I was nice and set I used the VA home loan. I did leave immediately for 5 years active duty, but when I came home I saw through the bullshit programming of abandoning your family to spend more on rent than a mortgage. Now I have a nice egg nest and the only debt is this land, while all my peers continue to rack up debt, no where near buying a house, and have been forking over 1200-1600 just for a decent place or less and living with a shitty roommate. Feels good man.
GingersAreEvil ago
See, that's sensible. Your family has to be sane, though.
MoteMoteKek11 ago
Finnish American Military family. Everyone’s fucked in the head but yea, I’d say they are good people. Those that aren’t, like my faggot cousin, get disowned.
GingersAreEvil ago
My family is kind of fucked too. I moved a long way away and figured out a lot about which were good and which were bad.
invisiblephrend ago
i grew up with helicopter parents and moved out when i was 21. they were fucking pissed and it was one of the best decisions that i'd ever made. i cannot even imagine how pathetic you'd have to be to be 30 and still not knowing what the fuck to do with your life.
capnflummox ago
30th? Damn... Got 11 more years than I did.
LeonoreRootes ago
The Commos were Jews ..
The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/RidersoftheReich comment by @RexYehudi.
Posted automatically (#64464) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @RexYehudi)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/Jews comment by @MartinTimothy.
Posted automatically (#59175) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @MartinTimothy)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/History comment by @MartinTimothy.
Posted automatically (#58043) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @MartinTimothy)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/History comment by @Quasiman.
Posted automatically (#58040) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Quasiman)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/Hiddenlol comment by @Quasiman.
Posted automatically (#58032) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Quasiman)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this anonymous v/QRV comment.
Posted automatically (#57797) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your anonymous crosslink notifications)
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/funny comment by @RoxannaHardbutt.
Posted automatically (#56385) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@LeonoreRootes: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @RoxannaHardbutt)
toyotaninhkieu ago
=))))) lol
Zestyclose_Marketing ago
Mom I can't lose my virginity. Alright I will become a radical to get laid! I have the choice of either communism or nazism
mean_dot ago
Nazi girls are way hotter ... and White.
jewsbadnews ago
Give section 8 housing to white people for free and deport the niggers and spics to the Sahara.
GingersAreEvil ago
They're actually reforesting the Sahara, and it's likely to become a rather nice area.
Lynch_Tree ago
Welfare wouldn't be such a problem if it wasn't for the hordes of shitskins abusing it.
TechDumb ago
Èxactly. From what I've read most Europeans have no problems paying ridiculously high taxes for their social programs. Up until now their countries have been homogeneous though.
MDE_Refugee ago
This is kind of what I've come to it conclusion of. When normies ask and I can't/won't respond with "niggers" I say that there are too many cultural differences for socialism to work. The reason why European stuff works is because they tend to have homogeneous cultures. Of course it all flies over their heads, but I try.
Lynch_Tree ago
Sweden in the 70s worked really well. Ya know, before the hordes of shitskins.
rspix000 ago
A slightly different take on how https://files.catbox.moe/e7i9lt.jpg
WokieDokie ago
honest curious, where do u found that is there more like that?
rspix000 ago
I read a LOT and steal graphics that I find interesting.
https://files.catbox.moe/elb2wa.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/5nkm48.jpg