You're viewing a single thread.
All property is gained and maintained through violence?
Does this mean any property, or just land ownership?
Is there a value threshold below which it becomes immoral to take someone's property from them?
I see this position bandied about sometimes, and I'm always curious what people actually think it means.
It's just edgelords trying to justify their misanthropic views.
Any private property, usually. Personal property is often exempt but there are different conceptions of where the line is. The most compelling to me is the concept of usufruct, wherein ownership is conferred by use. So anything you are personally using would belong to you and could be kept until you were done with it. But you could not impose a property claim on anything you are not using, because to do so would be to unjustly deny its use by someone else. Land is certainly a common example, but buildings, goods, anything could be viewed through this lens.
This isn't a philosophical thing. All property is maintained via coercion and the threat of violence.
So the blanket my grandmother knitted me when I was a baby? Am I justifying my ownership of that property via coercion and the threat of violence?
If someone came to take it, how're you going to stop that? At the end there are only physical barriers to ownership of anything.
I mean, I think you're hugely discounting psychological barriers, if nothing else. Most people are decent and wouldn't steal the blanket, even if they wanted it.
Ownership of things is a pretty intrinsic part of human existence, and humans are deeply social creatures. There are a lot of non-physical aspects that influence people's concept of ownership.
i think you misjudge the amount of people whos only limiting factor is consequences few people wiuld give a fuck if thats you deceased childs blanket and only memory of said child
That's the reason (some) people don't take it. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's bullshit to pretend only some types of property are voluntary.
I think my issue is less with the idea that property is protected with violence.
The point of the original comic though was that one is justified in using violence to take from the rich because they only have/maintain their property with violence.
But if all property is maintained by violence, am I not then justified in taking any property I see fit? If so, is it free reign to take the property of those whose ability to protect it with violence is minimal? Am I justified in stealing from children or the disabled, since they are protecting their property with the threat of violence?
The fact of the matter is that none of us want to live in that world, so we give over that threat of violence to the state. The state holds a monopoly on violence and notionally uses it to meet out it's use in an equitable and just way.
When the state is bad at that, that can be reason to work towards the restructure of the state, but it's never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.
I'm a voluntarist, I only agree with violence in response to aggression so. I also tend to stick to the sidelines most of the time.
but it’s never a reason (imo) to simply violate the law.
In your world how do unjust laws that benefit those who control the violence get changed?
Ideally through the civic channels that exist to accomplish change. Run for office. Campaign for reform. Pass the BAR and join a firm that does pro-bono work fighting for important issues.
But if all that fails, there is certainly a point where the people need to rise up and overthrow an unjust government.
But what I'm arguing is never justified is violence against other citizens just because they benefit from the unjust system. If the system is unjust, fix the system, don't lash out at those who just benefit from it.
I agree with you, ownership is more nuanced than threat of violence. And threat of violence is more nuanced than power and control. If somebody tried to take your blanket, then you may be inclined to report it to the police, and men with guns would show up at his house and take it back for you. That doesn't make you an oppressor.
Notice how the pigs didn't use violence and now the Wolves have their property.
Me: I'm questioning the premise of this comic. I think it's flawed.
You: Oh yeah? Did you see how it worked out for the characters in the comic? Did ya think about that?
I'm just saying, I think the comic is framing the wolf as a protagonist and advocating for an anarchist anticapitalist message, but the wolf murdered 3 people, including 2 who were so destitute they had houses made out of sticks and grass.