Why is private property bad?
If I don't own my shirt, then I yield all agency of my attire to whoever owns my shirt. I cannot dress as I wish. If I want to exercise, I am at the whim of the shirt owner to provide for me a proper exercise shirt. My shirt could be taken from me, for whatever arbitrary reason. I require ownership of my shirt to be able to exercise, or dress formally for an event or work, or casually for a night out with friends. Otherwise, I can only participate in these events with permission of the shirt owner. And therefor, I am controlled by the shirt owner.
>>2248544bc when 90％ percent of property available in the territory delimeted by a country is owned by 1％ of its people you got an utterly irrational situation that is bound to happen due to how capitalism works. Its unthinkable for a society that there is food and home and education for everyone but some people cant have it, and for better or for worse the only device we have for fixing this irrational situation is the State and turn almost all relevant goods into public ones, since the State, thanks to its link to territory and the control it has over it, its monopoly on violence, his control over instituions and infrastracture, and the constraint that other states and the threat of its own citizens rebellin poses on it, gives it the only semblance of political neutrality we can aspire to, unlike a private enterprises or the arena of private interests that is civil society, which, lacking these constraints
>>2248557>such as land, an office, a factoryIf I don't own the land then I yield all agency to whoever owns the land.
If I don't own the office….
If I don't own the factory….
etc, etc, etc..
>>2248566>You really don’tNot sure I can exist in a void.
>>2248567>he capitalists own it all.It seems to me that if the state isn't expressly there for my interest, it's going to exploit me just as much as the capitalist will. At least, with the capitalist I can buy him. Since he has a price.
>>2248571who is you? are you rich or something? if you are rich, ofc you want private property, bc if not, you wouldnt be rich, you would be non rich like all other people. But when you are non rich, like most of people are, and when the state supports private property of rich people, and when you as non rich dont have nothing, what are you going to do? you either cuck yourself into working for rich and gaining less than the value of your labour input, die or become.homeless, or try and become 01％ percent rich people, which most non rich people fail at, and then start cucking others. Or what else? steal or try to destroy rich people to redistribute 90％ of property to 100％ of people? you cant, because cuck state has been bought by rich people not by you. Now, if state owns 90％ of property and a lot of people have nothing, you as citizen can at least rebel against state or introduce yourself and your likeminded individuals into it, and if you have to fight it, you at least fight on one front, not 80000 fronts plus the state like when you have to fight civil society and each plutocrat it has on it…
>>2248620You are right in that i used the informal term of rich instead of a more precise one. Let's not use a relative definition of "rich", under which it would be true that, compared to a homeless person, me, service sector untrained worker, am rich. Let's call "rich" someone that is capable, through its patrimony, to support a political campaign or something in those lines, capable of influence the destiny of one or more nations. It is informally understood that these people are the 1%, because of many statistics that have been popluarized, but who knows? maybe is more maybe is even less, for the level of discussion we are having it is not relevant. So, you have to read my argument as if by "rich" I am referring to that specific type of person. Or, if find the terminology of "rich" problematic, let's just replace "the rich", which i said is that 1% of people which can influence an entire state with their money, by the set "A", and "rich people" by "elements of the set A". This way, there is absolutely no ambiguity, and it remains clear that me, worker, and x person, beggar, are more similar than one another than with the person that is an element of A, inasmuch as we have the same level of influence on a state, that is, 0, none, or if I can vote and the homeless no due to not being citizen or any other constraint, then we are still more similar because I have an infinitesimal amount and he has 0. Actually, as a foreign worker I can't vote, so we have the same influence. By contrast, the person inside set A (x ∈ A) has more than 0. Ok friend, now read the argument again with this adjustments and should all be clear.
>>2248560"Private property" is defined by completely denying access to the property of individuals who are not the owner. That's why it is "private".
Our world does not have enough land for each human (or even each human family) to individually own enough land to survive. It may seem not be a case if you just naively divide the total livable land area by the total human population… however: 1) Most of the livable land is actually unlivable right now by the standards of majority of modern first worlders without the decades of prior development. 2) Land nessesary for your survival is NOT just the living space. It is also all of fields, barns, and pastures where your food is grown, lands where the ores for your table forks and smartphone processors are mined, sewage pits to where all of your trash and poop is taken…
From the above two point, it follows that, by demanding private property of the land for yourself, you demand depriving others of what is nessesary for their lives.
>>2248655you could just use bourgeoisie instead of rich, since the problem is private ownership of the means of production, not having money. rich is arbitrary, but living off income from owning things instead of having to work is pretty distinct.
>>2248560>But I need land for daily living just as much as I need a shirt.what do you mean by that? like are you farming your own food or you mean you need a place to sleep at night?
>>2249372"workers" vs "owners"
everyone likes a self made man, no one likes someone who lives off inheritance. just dont argue with them about specific individuals. if they are receptive i like to go off on monopoly and say how they dont compete in the market or make anything new and live off corruption by buying out senators for laws to protect them and kickbacks. great when the wifi goes out and you can explain why they haven't upgraded the lines in two decades. then you can slip in municipal ownership for natural monopolies like electric and water because there cant be a market and competition is human nature so we all have to step in together as a democracy to regulate their greed.
>>2248544Another dumbass who can’t differentiate between personal and private property. Personal property is everything you personally use. Your car, your toothbrush, your tv, your clothes, your reasonable amount of food, your little garden you use to grow lemons for lemonade, your house, etc.
Private property is when you own water reservoirs, mining complexes, market centers, larger scale farm, centers of community interaction, markets, industrial complexes, apartment blocks, etc.
Unique IPs: 27