Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB


An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.


It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.


Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)


Worth reading imo.

As far as I can tell, a ewe is a source of wool, mutton and milk.

Also, they're cute and lovely.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB


An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.


It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.


Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)


Worth reading imo. durpalmI'm all for attacking libertarianism, although I suspect you mean liberalism. The rest men, hate thread.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB


An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.


It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.


Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)


Worth reading imo.

Libertarianism is directly against the idea of coercive inclusion - freedom of association is integral to the libertarian paradigm.

This is one of the reasons the civil rights movement is so heavily critiqued by the libertarian crowd.

So libertarianism strives towards a lawlessness society but tries it's best to stay capitalist?

Sounds like anarcho-communism with money.

Originally posted by Blakemore
So libertarianism strives towards a lawlessness society but tries it's best to stay capitalist?

Sounds like anarcho-communism with money.

The idea that anarchy is lawless is a misconception, intentionally created by the state so people would stay in the mindset that the state is necessary and natural.

Anarchy means without rulers, thus people are able to act freely.

Surely you don't think it's the case that the majority of people don't murder because the government says not to.

Nor do I think you believe that you think laws against murder actually stop people from being killed. Put another way, murderers will murder regardless of laws saying not to.

eBay is anarchical.
it created a common sense set of guidelines (laws) and if people don't follow them they're ostracized from the eBay trading process.

Many other everyday environments are the same way: restaurants (no shirt, no shoes, no service), banks (security guards) , baseball games (no shirt, no shoes, no service, and they have security guards.), etc.

Anarcho-communism gets alot of the political theory correct, but completely fails economically, hence why interdisciplinarian thought it so crucial to the evolution of ideas.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://luceononuro1.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/the-stealth-politics-of-the-transgender-movement.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwibk4mB4Mr1AhX-kYkEHb73C24QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2fmwY1R1YW6Kew5DcHFoLB


An downloadable PDF archived from "A Women's Journal". It talks about how identity politics are in and of itself a political statement, how analyzing said politics is NOT intolerance, and how the act of showing off a penis at a women's safe space at a festival proves the politics being expressed by feminism are not understood at all.


It also debunks things attributed to radical feminist thought, which are actually smears.


Not so much an attack on Transgenderism, as it is an attack on Libertarianism and the concept of inclusion for inclusions sake (As the writer says, if they wanted to be inclusive they'd have invited any man walking down the street. Inclusion isn't the point.)


Worth reading imo.


Always irritated me in Parks & Rec when Amy Poehler's character would demand inclusion into what she deemed to be 'boys club' stuff and nobody ever brought up the fact she never once invited any of the guys to one of her 'Galentine's day' brunches.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The idea that anarchy is lawless is a misconception, intentionally created by the state so people would stay in the mindset that the state is necessary and natural.

Anarchy means without rulers, thus people are able to act freely.

Surely you don't think it's the case that the majority of people don't murder because the government says not to.

Nor do I think you believe that you think laws against murder actually stop people from being killed. Put another way, murderers will murder regardless of laws saying not to.

eBay is anarchical.
it created a common sense set of guidelines (laws) and if people don't follow them they're ostracized from the eBay trading process.

Many other everyday environments are the same way: restaurants (no shirt, no shoes, no service), banks (security guards) , baseball games (no shirt, no shoes, no service, and they have security guards.), etc.

Anarcho-communism gets alot of the political theory correct, but completely fails economically, hence why interdisciplinarian thought it so crucial to the evolution of ideas. Anarchy is lawlessness. Akin to say chimpanzees in the wild. It's a flawed ideology because some kind of social hierarchy will eventually materialise.

I guess you like the idea that the one with the biggest cheque always wins.

I do not click on suspicious links. But from the description, it sounds like some TERF shit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not click on suspicious links. But from the description, it sounds like some TERF shit.

if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Anarchy is lawlessness. Akin to say chimpanzees in the wild. It's a flawed ideology because some kind of social hierarchy will eventually materialise.

I guess you like the idea that the one with the biggest cheque always wins.

Anarchy is not lawlessness, if the non aggression principle is viewed as axiomatic, which it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law



Social heirarchies aren't formed or maintained via violence, the way political organizations are, they're formed voluntarily.

Originally posted by cdtm
if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

WTF why you're saying I can't do black face anymore because it's wrong ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Anarchy is not lawlessness, if the non aggression principle is viewed as axiomatic, which it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law



Social heirarchies aren't formed or maintained via violence, the way political organizations are, they're formed voluntarily.

History would like to have word with you about forced social hierarchies my friend.

Originally posted by cdtm
if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.
Transracial rights are human rights! *Insert a goofy emoji of a raised fist*

Originally posted by Newjak


History would like to have word with you about forced social hierarchies my friend.

By social I mean voluntary.
So do tell me about how people are forced into voluntary organizations.

You think up is down, huh, bud ?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Transracial rights are human rights! *Insert a goofy emoji of a raised fist*

Eventually trans-everything will be accepted when we're all jacked into to whatever comes after meta (Facebook)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
By social I mean voluntary.
So do tell me about how people are forced into voluntary organizations.

You think up is down, huh, bud ? So you've chosen specific definitions that create a favorable foundation while ignoring that foundation crumbles in reality?

Seriously man so everything you think works is perfect peaceful cooperation and everything you hate is forced adherence.

Either way whatever terminology war you want to get into is fine but I think you're missing the main point. Is that if you exist in a lawless land what keeps the social hierarchies from becoming political organizations? Also how do political organizations form in the first place?

Originally posted by Newjak
So you've chosen specific definitions that create a favorable foundation while ignoring that foundation crumbles in reality?

Seriously man so everything you think works is perfect peaceful cooperation and everything you hate is forced adherence.

Either way whatever terminology war you want to get into is fine but I think you're missing the main point. Is that if you exist in a lawless land what keeps the social hierarchies from becoming political organizations? Also how do political organizations form in the first place?

Kmc is an anarchy.
You're here voluntarily, and so am I. There's no cops or government here, but there is a hierarchy because mods have more privileges than regular users.
I defer to the mods judgements because they know the rules better than me.

Welcome to anarchy.


Political organizations form through violence.
That's why America and Australia are offshoots of the UK.
The boundaries of countries are like the chalk outlines drawn around dead bodies at a crime seen.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Kmc is an anarchy.
You're here voluntarily, and so am I. There's no cops or government here, but there is a hierarchy because mods have more privileges than regular users.
I defer to the mods judgements because they know the rules better than me.

Welcome to anarchy.


Political organizations form through violence.
That's why America and Australia are offshoots of the UK.
The boundaries of countries are like the chalk outlines drawn around dead bodies at a crime seen.

Yes and the mods of the power to ban people which is a hostile action to them. Therefore it is organized and has all the base foundations of government laid into it. KMC as rules and laws that have to be followed. There are people given power to enforce those rules and law. The only difference is you choose to see self created organizations and governments as different even though from a basic operation standpoint they aren't.

The only thing that changes about them is scope.

Originally posted by Newjak


Yes and the mods of the power to ban people which is a hostile action to them. Therefore it is organized and has all the base foundations of government laid into it. KMC as rules and laws that have to be followed. There are people given power to enforce those rules and law. The only difference is you choose to see self created organizations and governments as different even though from a basic operation standpoint they aren't.

The only thing that changes about them is scope.

So you don't think there's a difference between the relationship you have with a close personal friend and a senator ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So you don't think there's a difference between the relationship you have with a close personal friend and a senator ? Well we aren't talking about one human communicating with one other human are we.

We're talking about groups of humans organizing themselves to do and meet goals. For instance KMC is organized around people chatting with each other. Yes it is voluntary interaction but you must adhere to the rules of the forums to be able to participate and those rules need to be enforced.

Those foundational pieces are very similar to state governing bodies. The scope and size is different.

If you got rid of all current governments they would be replaced by different organizing bodies and they would probably end similar to what we already. At least terms of function.

Originally posted by Newjak
Well we aren't talking about one human communicating with one other human are we.

We're talking about groups of humans organizing themselves to do and meet goals. For instance KMC is organized around people chatting with each other. Yes it is voluntary interaction but you must adhere to the rules of the forums to be able to participate and those rules need to be enforced.

Those foundational pieces are very similar to state governing bodies. The scope and size is different.

If you got rid of all current governments they would be replaced by different organizing bodies and they would probably end similar to what we already. At least terms of function.

There would still be rules in an anarchic society.
It would based on private property.
If we lived in a private property order then my house would be my domain, with my rules, and if you entered my home you would either follow the rules or be asked to leave. That's voluntarily.

The state says I have to pay taxes, I can't choose not to, thus it's involuntary.
If I continue to not pay them then they come arrest me and throw me in a cage with rapists and murderers. Not the same at all.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
There would still be rules in an anarchic society.
It would based on private property.
If we lived in a private property order then my house would be my domain, with my rules, and if you entered my home you would either follow the rules or be asked to leave. That's voluntarily.

The state says I have to pay taxes, I can't choose not to, thus it's involuntary.
If I continue to not pay them then they come arrest me and throw me in a cage with rapists and murderers. Not the same at all.
And just for fun how does one acquire private property in this world you've concocted?

Originally posted by Newjak

And just for fun how does one acquire private property in this world you've concocted?

Same way we both do.
Either by mixing our labor with natural resources i.e. putting a hunk of wood on a lathe and making a vase, or by trading for it.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Same way we both do.
Either by mixing our labor with natural resources i.e. putting a hunk of wood on a lathe and making a vase, or by trading for it. And specifically for land? That's what I'm interested in.

How do you acquire this domain?

Originally posted by Newjak
And specifically for land? That's what I'm interested in.

How do you acquire this domain?

By what is called original appropriation. John Locke described it as finding unowned land then erecting a fence, the land inside is yours.

However we live in a world where ownership already exists, so the state could sell all of their massive land holdings to private owners then let the free market go.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
By what is called original appropriation. John Locke described it as finding unowned land then erecting a fence, the land inside is yours.

However we live in a world where ownership already exists, so the state could sell all of their massive land holdings to private owners then let the free market go. So then the ones with the most money would get the most land and thus the most power...

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

Originally posted by cdtm
if a white person changed their skin color and wanted in on safe spaces for blacks, there would be no question why that's wrong.

Yet women should be expected to accept a penis in their space, when all they want is a space safe from penis's.

"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then the ones with the most money would get the most land and thus the most power...

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

His entire ideology is incoherent, because without governments, there is no agreed upon currency.

Corporations used to pay workers with company-issued notes that could only be redeemed at company-owned businesses. They were completely useless outside of that ecosystem, because nobody else recognized it as legal tender. It is why so many workers were unable to build generational wealth. They could not buy land or houses, because they were not paid in actual money. They lived in a tract home provided by the company, and spent all of their earnings at businesses owned by the company.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His entire ideology is incoherent, because without governments, there is no agreed upon currency.

Corporations used to pay workers with company-issued notes that could only be redeemed at company-owned businesses. They were completely useless outside of that ecosystem, because nobody else recognized it as legal tender. It is why so many workers were unable to build generational wealth. They could not buy land or houses, because they were not paid in actual money. They lived in a tract home provided by the company, and spent all of their earnings at businesses owned by the company. Oh I know.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

Originally posted by Newjak
So then the ones with the most money would get the most land and thus the most power...

Also original appropriation is garbage because in no way does it actually bind it too you if no one wants to follow that rule.

Correct, but they have the most money because they provided the most value to people, who traded for something they valued more than their money.

Originally appropriated land is binded to you by your ability to defend it, hence why self defense is a legitimate form of violence and why libertarianism focuses on the INITIATION of violence.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

See, this is why I wish you'd read the article. It would do a far better job of explaining it then I could.

But it does go into how feminism is as much about head spaces as biological realities. A side feature next to the main article is a feminist explaining how if she was raised in a butch community, she could as easily been chasing after ideals of butch masculinity instead of her anti-patriarchial ambitions.


I'm still digesting the article myself, there is a lot to take in and I'm not certain I'll ever grasp it all. But I do see the main criticism of a pre-op trans woman stripping naked in a shower with feminist women who weren't really conditioned to accept that, at an event who's purpose was to get away from male violence.

From the context, it sounds like this particular trans individual was intentionally flouting his organ as a statement, and inadvertently trampled on people suffering from their own issued related to the organ in question.

Originally posted by Newjak
Oh I know.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

No private property holders would write the rules, within the bounds of their property. Thus if you don't like the rules don't patron the place with the rules you don't like.

Of course there wouldn't be universal laws because people are different.
Catholics would follow Catholic law, Muslims Muslim law, Jews Jewish law.

Of course youd want competing currencies, only having one currency is a weakness because it insinuates only one group would control the money supply, which would give that money printing entity asymmetric power.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Woman" is not synonymous with "female." It is a social category that includes both cisgender and transgender people who identify with the social role "woman."

There may be some merit to segregating spaces by sex when people share them in the nude. And there may be some merit to segregating spaces by gender identity when the purpose is to discuss shared experiences.

But neither of those are "safe spaces," and no one is administering a DNA test as a condition of entry, so it is a really weak argument.

Since when isn't female synonymous with woman ? Are you sure this isn't you parroting an incoherent ideology then projecting on me that my ideology is the incoherent one ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
No private property holders would write the rules, within the bounds of their property. Thus if you don't like the rules don't patron the place with the rules you don't like.

Of course there wouldn't be universal laws because people are different.
Catholics would follow Catholic law, Muslims Muslim law, Jews Jewish law.

Of course youd want competing currencies, only having one currency is a weakness because it insinuates only one group would control the money supply, which would give that money printing entity asymmetric power. And what dictates the currency used?

And what keeps property owners from just taking other people's property and adding it their own? What happens to people born without property or if their families have no property?

Is the owner just one big king? What about the spouse's of these owners? What happens to the property when the owners die?

Who enforces this?

You're basically taking us back to early human civilization and starting the exact same cycle that got us to this point to begin with.

Originally posted by Newjak
Oh I know.

It's also why even if you get rid of "governments and the state" other ones would just take place because you need governing bodies to enforce social constructs like currency and laws.

If corporations were the ones to step into that void it would be like going back to feudal lord systems.

"Corporation" and "government" are just labels for the ways people have decided to organize themselves. The only difference is the reason around which they are organized. I do not know why he thinks one label is preferable to the other, or why he thinks profit is some sacred motive, when history has proven that it is not.

Originally posted by cdtm
See, this is why I wish you'd read the article. It would do a far better job of explaining it then I could.

But it does go into how feminism is as much about head spaces as biological realities. A side feature next to the main article is a feminist explaining how if she was raised in a butch community, she could as easily been chasing after ideals of butch masculinity instead of her anti-patriarchial ambitions.


I'm still digesting the article myself, there is a lot to take in and I'm not certain I'll ever grasp it all. But I do see the main criticism of a pre-op trans woman stripping naked in a shower with feminist women who weren't really conditioned to accept that, at an event who's purpose was to get away from male violence.

From the context, it sounds like this particular trans individual was intentionally flouting his organ as a statement, and inadvertently trampled on people suffering from their own issued related to the organ in question.

It sounds like a lot of histrionics.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Since when isn't female synonymous with woman ? Are you sure this isn't you parroting an incoherent ideology then projecting on me that my ideology is the incoherent one ?

Since always. We do not have separate terms for "sex" and "gender," because they are the same thing.

Originally posted by Newjak
And what dictates the currency used?

And what keeps property owners from just taking other people's property and adding it their own? What happens to people born without property or if their families have no property?

Is the owner just one big king? What about the spouse's of these owners? What happens to the property when the owners die?

Who enforces this?

You're basically taking us back to early human civilization and starting the exact same cycle that got us to this point to begin with.

The people who want to use it i.e. people investing in gold, silver, crypto, stocks, etc.

Competition between currencies would reveal which are good and which aren't. The better currency that holds it value longer would be stored, while the lesser curricies would have a rapid circulation. This is a principle known as Gresham's law.

The things that stops someone from stealing other people's property is; a sense of decency/moral compass, self defense (if someone comes to steal from me and I point a shotgun at them, they're going to be deterred.), Security measures i.e. gravel to hear someone's approach, security cameras, dogs, signage.
These are also the things that stop property crime now, as around 40 percent of murders in America currently go unsolved, in addition to thousands and thousands of other property crimes.
Laws aren't what stop the average person from murdering, raping, or stealing, common decency is. Immoral people don't give a shit about following laws or not.

If your family has no property it's because they didn't provide any value to anyone, if they did then they'd be able to afford property.
Everyone is born with property, it's called your body and it's effects.

No I'm saying we should go back 300 years before there were violent cartels known as governments, that only exist as parasites on the back of consumer-producers.
They provide nothing, if they did provide value they wouldn't be in mutli-trillionaire debt.

If a powerful company in a free market doesn't provide value then it collapses as a business. The only place valueless businesses exist is under the state, in the form or bailout or artificially low interest loans.

So if a powerful company became violent in a free market, it would quickly collapse.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
The people who want to use it i.e. people investing in gold, silver, crypto, stocks, etc.

Competition between currencies would reveal which are good and which aren't. The better currency that holds it value longer would be stored, while the lesser curricies would have a rapid circulation. This is a principle known as Gresham's law.

The things that stops someone from stealing other people's property is; a sense of decency/moral compass, self defense (if someone comes to steal from me and I point a shotgun at them, they're going to be deterred.), Security measures i.e. gravel to hear someone's approach, security cameras, dogs, signage.
These are also the things that stop property crime now, as around 40 percent of murders in America currently go unsolved, in addition to thousands and thousands of other property crimes.
Laws aren't what stop the average person from murdering, raping, or stealing, common decency is. Immoral people don't give a shit about following laws or not.

If your family has no property it's because they didn't provide any value to anyone, if they did then they'd be able to afford property.
Everyone is born with property, it's called your body and it's effects.

No I'm saying we should go back 300 years before there were violent cartels known as governments, that only exist as parasites on the back of consumer-producers.
They provide nothing, if they did provide value they wouldn't be in mutli-trillionaire debt.

If a powerful company in a free market doesn't provide value then it collapses as a business. The only place valueless businesses exist is under the state, in the form or bailout or artificially low interest loans.

So if a powerful company became violent in a free market, it would quickly collapse. Dude this fanfiction bullshit.

History by itself should tell this isn't going to work. First off not all land is created equal. And what happens when multiple join forces to take over land from other people. And since land ownership is the most important property in your entire system as the make the rules it does indeed matter you starts off with land or not.

Like this system will just turn in to feudal Europe within a year.

Originally posted by Newjak
Dude this fanfiction bullshit.

History by itself should tell this isn't going to work. First off not all land is created equal. And what happens when multiple join forces to take over land from other people. And since land ownership is the most important property in your entire system as the make the rules it does indeed matter you starts off with land or not.

Like this system will just turn in to feudal Europe within a year.

Obviously land isnt created equally and I never said it was. That's why there will be competition between those who want to use that land and it's in everyone's best interest that those who make the most efficient use out of the factors of production own the most valuable pieces of land.

Again insurance companies and dispute resolution organizations would sell their services of property defense and insurance.
If you're violent or associate with violent people then no one will insure you.

Why do you think that everyone is so violent ? Do you really think everyone doesn't kill each other because cops exist ?
Do you not kill because it's wrong to kill or because you're afraid to get caught ?
If you dont murder because you're afraid to get caught then that may explain why you don't understand the moral underpinnings of what I'm saying.

You act like if we got rid of the state that all modern conveniences would disappear.
Iphones and arbitration would still exist without the state.

Just because land is very valuable doesn't mean everything else is valueless. Not sure why you'd think that.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Obviously land isnt created equally and I never said it was. That's why there will be competition between those who want to use that land and it's in everyone's best interest that those who make the most efficient use out of the factors of production own the most valuable pieces of land.

Again insurance companies and dispute resolution organizations would sell their services of property defense and insurance.
If you're violent or associate with violent people then no one will insure you.

Why do you think that everyone is so violent ? Do you really think everyone doesn't kill each other because cops exist ?
Do you not kill because it's wrong to kill or because you're afraid to get caught ?
If you dont murder because you're afraid to get caught then that may explain why you don't understand the moral underpinnings of what I'm saying.

You act like if we got rid of the state that all modern conveniences would disappear.
Iphones and arbitration would still exist without the state.

Just because land is very valuable doesn't mean everything else is valueless. Not sure why you'd think that. The people who get make the rules are the ones with the most power. That inherently makes land the valuable assets as they make the rules. Also all these companies how are they regulating themselves in this market. Sounds like they would just buy up all the land or take it from other people.

And I don't humanity has to be violent but a free for all where its a race to buy up the most land to get the most resources is most definitely just going to create Feudal Europe all over again.

Heck it may even come to violence but if a large corporation or business gets enough military might all they have to do is say give us your land or we'll take it.

Like this is history. This history as it has always been. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the flaws in your system.

Originally posted by Newjak
The people who get make the rules are the ones with the most power. That inherently makes land the valuable assets as they make the rules. Also all these companies how are they regulating themselves in this market. Sounds like they would just buy up all the land or take it from other people.

And I don't humanity has to be violent but a free for all where its a race to buy up the most land to get the most resources is most definitely just going to create Feudal Europe all over again.

Heck it may even come to violence but if a large corporation or business gets enough military might all they have to do is say give us your land or we'll take it.

Like this is history. This history as it has always been. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the flaws in your system.

That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it. Face the facts man. You're just recreating feudal Europe but it's the corporations that will be the rulers.

And companies have tried to create their own currencies and towns and rule over their employees lives. It is the coal miner towns all over again.

And land doesn't have to always be acquired violently. They could also purchase it via money and status in their kingdoms from smaller land owners.

Also just the threat of violence is sometimes to be enough. Like your system isn't going to work because there are so many open ended questions that you're just going to get governments again. In fact the land owners are governments unto themselves.

Originally posted by Newjak
Face the facts man. You're just recreating feudal Europe but it's the corporations that will be the rulers.

And companies have tried to create their own currencies and towns and rule over their employees lives. It is the coal miner towns all over again.

And land doesn't have to always be acquired violently. They could also purchase it via money and status in their kingdoms from smaller land owners.

Also just the threat of violence is sometimes to be enough. Like your system isn't going to work because there are so many open ended questions that you're just going to get governments again. In fact the land owners are governments unto themselves.

What do you think the term feudalism describes ?

So you think that whoever controls the money rules over the people in a tyrannical way ?

Land is only acquired violently by states. If land is traded for or gifted it's morally acquired by the social means.

It's not my system, it's a system of thought that's been developing and evolving for thousands of years. It is simply a society without violence, and where violence inevitably crops up the victim will be compensated. That's it.

Why are you so pro violence ? It's weird.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What do you think the term feudalism describes ?

So you think that whoever controls the money rules over the people in a tyrannical way ?

Land is only acquired violently by states. If land is traded for or gifted it's morally acquired by the social means.

It's not my system, it's a system of thought that's been developing and evolving for thousands of years. It is simply a society without violence, and where violence inevitably crops up the victim will be compensated. That's it.

Why are you so pro violence ? It's weird. You can not be this dense.

It's not about being pro violence it's about understand how this works.

Companies will very much buy up as land and resources as they want. And since they will own the land they will get to make the rules. It's greed and still exists even to this day.

And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones. And in your system the ones the ability to acquire the most land have the most advantages.

Originally posted by Newjak
You can not be this dense.

It's not about being pro violence it's about understand how this works.

Companies will very much buy up as land and resources as they want. And since they will own the land they will get to make the rules. It's greed and still exists even to this day.

And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones. And in your system the ones the ability to acquire the most land have the most advantages.

Calling me dense isn't you defining feudalism, which is what I asked for

Companies are made of individuals, individuals buy land.

Governments are violent companies are not. You're assuming land = power, it doesn't.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Calling me dense isn't you defining feudalism, which is what I asked for

Companies are made of individuals, individuals buy land.

Governments are violent companies are not. You're assuming land = power, it doesn't. durmask

Originally posted by Newjak
And the main point I'm trying get you to understand is you're not getting rid of governments you're just creating new ones.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

And what he fails to understand is that at least in representative governments, people have influence over how things are run. In the system he is proposing, the power is concentrated into the hands of the owner or owners of the corporation. No one has any influence over them. So they can buy all the natural resources, and literally charge you to breathe air, and you would have no recourse.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Ding! Ding! Ding!

And what he fails to understand is that at least in representative governments, people have influence over how things are run. In the system he is proposing, the power is concentrated into the hands of the owner or owners of the corporation. No one has any influence over them. So they can buy all the natural resources, and literally charge you to breathe air, and you would have no recourse. It's like he is literally trying to take us back to the time frame where territories were first being claimed and expecting an entirely different outcome.

I also love how he keeps saying companies aren't violent.

Like history completely debunks that idea. Companies have hired union breakers to commit violence against workers going on strike before. They have tried to make employees like indentured servants before.

And then he acts like somehow humans aren't going to human and try to take more resources and land from each other.

Also his spat about land not equaling power when he literally said whoever owns the property gets to make the rules lol.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
That's not true, Catholics would follow Catholic law regardless of how much land the Catholic church owns. There are values outside of monetary value, like osycho-spiritul value. This idea disproves your premise, which means your conclusion is also incorrect.

Do you think land isn't valuable right now ? States own the most land right now, and they make the rules, but only because their unique status as a territorial monopoly on violence.

If land is valuable right now, people seem to acquire it nonviolently all the time i.e. real estate agents showing houses to people looking for a house, then they buy them from the seller.

A corporation only exists if the state exists. I think you mean company. A company can only pay people if they provide value to customers, no one would buy from someone threatening to take their land.

Only States and conquerers acquire land through violence.

Are you saying a powerful company has acted as a state ? When did that happen ? I've never heard of it. durpalm