TotalCrackpot

Can you explain why you think that? I will gladly learn something new from you.

Countless humans got their lives destroyed because of this perfectly normal variation of human sexuality, that's atrocious and so we should never forget what happened to Alan Turing because of essentially religious fundamentalism.

Yeah, on the other hand you had Anarchist Catalonia or currently Zapatistas. In USA you had MK Ultra, where government experimented on people through for example drugging them and you have homelessness too. Moreover people who fought for liberation were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

It seems like you don't discuss in a good faith to be honest.

> That's not quite how your comments elsewhere in this thread read lol

What do you don't understand? I can try to explain in more elementarily if you have problems with understanding something.

> Wanna name a couple of those civilizations that didn't have property rights that managed to thrive and grow beyond a population of like 10,000?

This list can be quite relevant, some of those project existed for a short time, some for longer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W1wWjWNXhvHjMzzyxT5z5Es_...

>Brother, they showed up with guns and took over buildings by force; they destroyed the land records for everyone, not just their specific "members" - if that's not coercion, what is?

What do you think about genocide of Indigenous Americans? Is it okay? Or can they defend themselves?

No, I think no one should get exploited and oppressed and everyone should have an opportunity to develop to the heights of one's potential.

How they can make something they can trade, if they have no land on which they can make it? Where can they go, if private property exists in most of the world?

They did not have private property with landlord and employers. They had common property and usually some kind of gift economy.

I think it depends on local customs and local agreements, it can differ. I guess I could consider a house abandoned if no one lives there for a year or 2. While for a mine, I think I would consider it abandoned the moment previous miners left it, such that other can get into the mine and mine some resource.

I don't agree with you, I don't think you discuss in a good faith. You seem to write in a very emotional state, which possibly does not make you stable enough to engage in a coherent discussion.

I think everyone should have an opportunity to develop to the heights of one's potential and I think no one should be oppressed and exploited. I don't agree with you that I am anti-social or I have destructive ideas. Moreover, I am a very happy person, I consider myself completely satisfied with my personal life and that's why I am willing to engage in a fight for other people's opportunity to develop, even if they were unlucky in their life and they didn't have access to those opportunities. I am fine with propagating a complete deconstruction of norms very strongly naturalized in our current society if I find them justifying oppression and exploitation.

The most important difference is everyone could create such a group without main authority monopolizing violence. Some would try to recreate current authoritarian relations, while others would oppose them.

> In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case..

I like precise logical argumentation, that's not idealism, I don't make any unnecessary assumptions

> I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending.

Oh, that's very simple, for most of human history humans lived as hunter gatherers and they did not have private property or rent relations.

>To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit.

No, there was an enclosure of commons that happened to exploit farmers as factory workers. Those rights were always about naturalizing oppressive human relations.

>It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society.

This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal, they are even not universal in this worlds, even if they exist in most places around the world.

>I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement..

No one is coerced to join those rebels. And rebels are rebelling against unjust genocide of Indigenous Americans among others.

How is that different to the current society, except that now if you put up a yurt somewhere you will get harassed by police?

How do you deal with a situation where some people don't have any land anymore to put their houses there?

Are fine with oppression and exploitation of other humans? Is that okay according to your morals and ideals?

Zapatistas are organized Indigenous Americans, they are fighting against genocide. Why for you people who fight for their own survival are bandits? Do you think that people who were committing the genocide are fine? Do you approve of genocide of Indigenous Americans? If so, then that's disgusting.

I am living under my address, I am occupying that place, so I am not fine with providing my address. But I am fine with people living in abandoned houses.

Calling people you disagree with extremists is just an insult and it's not nice. It's rude. There is nothing extremists about fighting for a world where no one is oppressed and everyone can develop to the heights of one's potential.

Could you elaborate why I am not sticking to those guidelines?

No it's not. Private property created a world where 8 persons control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. This is not common prosperity, this is exploitation.

Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. You have to always consider local conditions and if you can see that certain ideas help some part of some territory develop better then alternatives then it's a strong argument for them. Especially considering that rebels are fighting against colonially motivated genocide.

I don't agree with the notion of buying a plot. No one should ever have to pay for an empty plot of land.

At worst everyone should have an access to piece of land where they can build a shelter for themselves, or live in a yurt or an RV if they don't want to build the typical housing.

Most anarchists are feminists and they are against anti-semitism. Historically a few theoreticians were anti-Semites, but most were not. You seem to just be dehumanizing other people who have different views than you, which is disgusting and not something you should be proud of.

Anarchist Catalonia had an economic growth during it's short existence during the Spanish Civil War and it operated on those types of property norms, so this falsifies your argument.

Anarchist Catalonia had this type of property norm for about 2 years during Spanish Civil War and it indeed had an economic growth.

>Trying to form logical arguments that refute completely absurd and irrational ones is not particularly productive...

It's not, but my arguments are not absurd and irrational, they are rational.

> That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history.

> Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us.

>This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.

Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them?

> Rights don't derive from wants or needs.

From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights?

> The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.

Please share your sources for this statement.

Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.

No, I want for example to abolish private property of land and natural resources.

I don't think I have a problem per se with the notion of borrowing money, if that's what you are asking about.

I personally don't have an issue with you finding people who help you with building the house that agree to do that for some payment.

It's crucial to understand that if we let a person that build a shelter keep it for eternity then that person can build many shelters such that there will be no land left for other people to build their shelters on.