954
Rule (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

The legal means also protect property. Otherwise someone who is stronger can just take whatever they like from someone who is weaker.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I specified private property (absentee ownership), which is distinct from personal property (active usage ownership).

A house that I live in: personal property. A house I rent to someone else so they can live in it: private property.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

That doesn't change anything, does it? What's stopping people from kicking me out of whatever place I am living in because they want it instead?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

The self-defensive mechanisms established by the community I live in.

Anarchism doesn't mean that humans can't form societal structures. It just means that decisions are made bottom-up instead of top-down.

Hierarchical society doesn't stop anyone with "higher rank" from claiming my house e.g. to build a highway or coal mine.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? "The self-defensive mechanisms" is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

No, the self-defense mechanisms aren't the same thing as "police", since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.

An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

So when you have 150 people in a society and 80 vote for people with red hair should be burned as witches what happens then?

[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don't think that's a realistic scenario, though.

If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That's akin to saying "what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?" It's unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
954 points (100.0% liked)

196

16245 readers
2509 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS