Pick a topic and argue a position while the rest either step into the ring or eat popcorn and watch.
1 Like
bzzzt … nope. presupposition. from your link …
‘theft’ as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property…"
fuck that. I was born privileged and intend staying that way. Otherwise … what’s the point?
Why do marxists hate Earl Grey tea? Because all proper tea is theft.
1 Like
Komred, as a proud member of the socialist alliance for greater progress of peoples democratic republika of Australasia I regret to inform you that your views place you in vat we call the “Komred Trump” category of socialist.
Vhilst we can tolerate this position for a period of time, you will be sent to camp once glorious restoration of Great Russ is completed.
You must abolish all property and theft! For all must belong to great President Putin. Then there is not theft. The end.
1 Like
Theft?
Fie!
Property is a consensual hallucination.
(But then, so is just about every other structure we engage in collectively)
1 Like
You mean construct of the Proletariat to rule the Worker and enslave their labour to means of production for individual gain at expense of the state and the safety and wealth it offers all.
1 Like
I ain’t got nothin’. If no-one had nothin’, we’d all have everything. Just no-one would own it.
As long as everyone has to stay in my hotels, that is fine.[quote=“edeity, post:4, topic:1266”]
Vhilst we can tolerate this position for a period of time, you will be sent to camp once glorious restoration of Great Russ is completed.
[/quote]
Does it have waterslides? If so, sounds nice.
If we all own what Comrade Putin owns, then this is success!
There is nothing consensual about it, it gets drilled into us from the first time we try to take our sister’s toys. But yes, it is a hallucination.
1 Like
3 Likes
bullshit. I bet you have something. Not as much as some but more than some others, I suspect.
The problem is too many humans, not “property” as a … [quote=“tserong, post:5, topic:1266”]
consensual hallucination.
[/quote]
I have a beer. You can prise that from my cold dead hand.
If we all had access to everything, we wouldn’t need as much of anything. Why would I need a car, if I could jump into an unused one on the street? Why would I need to own Google, if I just had free access to all of it’s services like everyone else?
WOT! No Rum?
oh yeah? would you come and drive my tractor? Mark the calves? Spray the weeds? Shoot the deer? Service the car you just took?
old permaculture catch-cry, “user pays”.
edit. ps. I have whiskey
Komred, you miss supreme strategy for global domination of socialism
1 Like
Maybe we should revert to the “watery tarts casting swords out of lakes” basis for government.
2 Likes
OK. Radical statement … "All government is based on violence."
I think I can defend that premise.
1 Like
Well it is blatantly true.
“Every national border in Europe,” El Eswad added ironically, “marks the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each other anymore and signed a treaty. Patriotism is the delusion that one of these gangs of bandits is better than all the others.” -Robert Anton Wilson.
1 Like
OK, maybe that one was too easy for this venue.
How about “Most forms of government, when taken to their extreme, ultimately converge on anarchy.” ?
What if I went one step further and said that all of government is still based on violence?
I.e. not just historically.
Still completely true.
Police cracking down on protesters, strikers are obvious examples of ‘the violence in the system’. The prison system is predicated on violence too, otherwise people would just wander off.
1 Like
