: : : SDF: And if I violate your "right," my punishment?
: : That the one you violate would respond accordingly,
: SDF: i.e. "initiating force"
So defending oneself against an attacker is now *initiating* force?
: SDF: So you believe in states now, as long as they enact your favorite law? What if they don't?
I said in a state that could happen, where was "i believe in states"?
: SDF: No, it's not. If people don't feel obligated to defend their own private stashes, they won't feel obligated to hire security forces to protect such stashes. The requirement for the end of the state on the W.S.M model is the end of the acquisitive society. The W.S.M. illusion is that it can all be established tomorrow, whereas the reality is that it requires people to become saner and less apt to hoard. No, it's not going to be forced on people; as the experience with Soviet religion shows, pointing guns at heads is not an efficacious way of changing their personalities. Technology, on the other hand, has changed everyone's personality, so technology also often serves as behavioral technology.
Thats very reasonable. the proviso that it will not be forced upon anyone would have any proponent of this W.S.M model rigerously opposed to laws wich seek to curtial acquisitiveness via forceful re-distribution.
It is also why I do not forsee such a W.S.M model ever coming about or attaining any kind of stability should it do so on any significant scale.
: The caveat is that it has to be the real deal, that people have to feel genuinely motivated to do it that way. Hoarding is counter-productive -- it goes against human group survival,
It doesnt where the hoarding is done for the benefit of those whom you value as part of your group. People are selective of others.
: On the other hand, who says people can't produce a technological society without hoarding? Small-scale communes come to mind. There's even a well-developed model.
Such communities would be fine examples of human interaction without force, where membership of the community is voluntary, provisional and revocable by all concerned. Just like any good relationship between adults.
: SDF: Starving people do not wake up in the morning looking for values to eat.
They look for food, aka things of value to human life.
: SDF: People do not eat values. We are still in the condition which requires illusions. Talk straight.
Youve simply misunderstood it. Value : Worth; that property or those properties of a thing which render it useful or estimable; or the degree of that property or of such properties. The real value of a thing is its utility, its power or capacity of procuring or producing good (Websters, 1828)
: SDF: Private ownership builds buildings, then later moves the jobs performed in such buildings elsewhere. Local economies collapse because of investment flight. Private ownership causes slums.
An assumption that the same economic strength would be present without private ownership, that slums would *not* have simply existed all along. Still doesnt really adress the assertion that force results from private ownership and would vanish if it were barred.
As with the previously mentioned model, force would vanish only when poeple voluntarily gave it up, where it gave no advantage. A post socialist revolution culture would be as vulnerable to advantage seekin users of force as any other. It is a fantasy to imagine perpetual peace.
: SDF: So they would "initiate force," as promised in Gee's utopian vision. LOL!
They would defend themselves from your acting upon them, which is waht stealing is.
: SDF: No, I'd call the cops.
To protect your property from others in place of doing so yourself. Incidently they could not help, they just dont gete there during the execution of a crime.