This is a poor argument.
Private property is an idea so good it should be mandatory.
Stop using poor arguments when there are better ones. unless you're a hired bot.
What, pray tell, is a better argument? There are many, but I want to hear some from you.
He probably thinks they won't threaten us with violence once they get socialism.
Maybe, but I want to hear what has to say... and they are still yet to respond.
As good as it feels to just unleash your power level (and I am very guilty of that), you can learn a lot more about someone by asking them questions and just listening.
They are constantly threatening ''us'' with violence. It's been centuries. There's always a socialist law on the book.
The deontological approach: You can appeal to someone's desire for enterprise free from interference (beign able to build a home without someone smashing the shit out of it, etc)
The utilitarian approach: You can argue how private property is more conducive to someone's values, this can include the competitiveness of the in-group through property's effected prosperity, and eugenics.
I can go into further detail where you want. Prosperity is divided into incentives aligned with natural motivations and thus icnreases output, explaining how pursuit of profit has more positive than negative externalities, explaining how the network of prices through supplies and demands is more conducive to prosperous decisions than is central planning (which I assume those who attacked me don't know bc they're too dumb: shots fired).
The first part increases output through effort, the second through efficiency of where the effort is applied.
You can also bash the alternatives.
edit: The meme in the op won't convince anyone who disagrees with you lol. Well maybe the normies who hate violence. or the libertines. meh maybe this is more of a projection of mine. Atleast it wont convince the critical thinkers because the logic is weak. If I was debating a commie on logic, I wouldn't use the meme in the OP.
That is all well and clear, but you're forgetting that it's a meme, not an argumentative essay.
Vast amounts of literature and debate has been had regarding economic systems, and still people can't understand. If you think you can explain how price controls and central planning = bad in a simple graphic that takes less than 5 seconds to read and digest, then please be my guest.
I've debated many a commie, and the other only thing that really works is to give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll shut down or dismiss anything you say otherwise, and don't listen to logical arguments. You just have to let them talk and ask a few questions; making it seem that your intent is honest. They trip up - because it's communism and it doesn't make sense or work - and get confused.
I think it gets to the heart of the matter. Many on the left don't realize that their policies ultimately are enforced through the use of violence.
I actually found a piece of evidence to support a much better theory.
The theory is that they define violence as anything standing against their wishes.
Everything else is peace.
I am not kidding you. I will see if I can find it.
Basicalyl the guy claims to have debunked the nap with the argument that preventing him from stealing food is a violation of the nap if he dies without it. or simply, if he needs it.
I feel hungry! gibsmedat!
No moral awareness of the consequences of norms and incentives throughout the season. LEt's force the ants to give food to the grasshopper. That'll make our race strong. Socialist hand rubbing intensifies
edit: here it is: https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-against-me-dopes/
If you stand in the way of forced sharing of ressources to keep your fellow man alive, you are an aggressor. There is no concept of you having sacrificed in the past to save these ressource and taking them from you punishes you from saving.
but niggers dont need savings. it's not like they have winter or anything. or even a civilization to invest in. I suppose they evolved mud hut privatization.
HEre's another take on why they believe it is not violence:
People believe more in the norms of the group than they believe in property rights. The state is the norms of the group.
By being part of a group one ... well I think it should be clear that being forced to adhere to a group's nroms isn't consent. so nvm.
nvm. Basically they equate the desire for people following rules even if they disagree with some of them with consent to being subject to those same rules. aka democracy
Get fucked commie fag.
A poor argument to you may drive the point home to me, or some fence sitter.
Private property is as natural as breathing, a basic reward-punishment for life decisions, it shouldn't even be discussed. It should be accepted without question and all people should intuitively strive to accumulate it.
Respect for your high standards though.
No one is forced to have private property. The only force is to stop someone from removing that private property, thereby denying that person's rights. No right is mandatory. Not taking away someone's rights is much different than forcing someone to do something. It's the basis of consent and trespass.
The only force is to stop someone from removing that private property, thereby denying that person's rights.
Are you saying others have right to what capitalists consider another's property rights?
I think the following comment might give you some clarity:
'' You claim you don't use aggression. You define aggression as the initiation of force. You then define the initiation of force as using force to implement and maintain all property systems except your own. Therefore, you conclude you don't use aggression. ''
I can't single on one and only one possible version of what you mean. Try using less negatives?
It's the basis of consent and trespass.
For the body only. And trespass generally deals with external property. Forcing someone away from your property is forcing someone to do something. Try turning up the rationality resolution? You need the concept of the right to enterprise free of interference as a basis for property rights, and therefore trespass and consent as you mentioned.
Anyway there wasn't much point in arguing with the majority of commies so there's little to lose in understanding the intricacies that underly capitalist values and how to debate them with someone who disagrees philosophically.
No. I said literally the opposite. No one has the right to take another person's private property. Using force to do that is a violation of the person's rights
Edit: i see that my wording was bit poor in my comment. Just clarifying that force can be used to prevent the theft of someone's personal property. Any removal that wasn't consented to.
(post is archived)