Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[pErvinalia]

..it is only a matter of time before our prodigal son returns to the fold.

Jesus?

Jesus? He's busy mowing the lawn right now.

[JimC]

The whole "property is theft" thing really means "lolling around living off the millions I make by owning a factory I inherited from my dad is theft"

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

The whole "property is theft" thing really means "lolling around living off the millions I make by owning a factory I inherited from my dad is theft"

It isn't that, actually. It's the concept that underpins the abolition of private property, because the concept traces property ownership, particularly real property, back to the original owner who must have done the equivalent of encircling a piece of ground and calling it his own by declaration. Thus, all property is theft - theft is considered taking the property of another - but any property owner's rights are founded upon the original person having simply taken the property (from nobody) and declared it his own, which folks like Proudhon and Marx said was theft. They concluded that taking property owned by nobody was theft -- like if you pick up a stick in the woods and widdle it into an art form, and keep it as your own, you've stolen that stick, even though nobody owned it in the first place.

The absurdity of Proudhon's notion should be self-evident, which is that you can't steal what isn't property in the first place. So, logically, the idea that property, per se, is theft is destroyed by the notion that before that first person put a fence around some property, it wasn't property. You can't steal what isn't property. You can only steal what is property.

Marx ultimately recognized this, but was still wedded to the notion of eliminating the concept of private property.

Limiting the idea to a rich millionaire heiress living off her daddy's fortune is to miss the key point of the principle of property being theft and the abolition of private property.

[pErvinalia]

The absurdity of Proudhon's notion should be self-evident, which is that you can't steal what isn't property in the first place. So, logically, the idea that property, per se, is theft is destroyed by the notion that before that first person put a fence around some property, it wasn't property. You can't steal what isn't property. You can only steal what is property.

It's theft because before being encirlced everybody could enjoy the benefits of that land. After it became legally property, in most cases everyone else is excluded from enjoying the benefits of that land. Whether it was called "property" originally is irrelevant.

[Forty Two]

The absurdity of Proudhon's notion should be self-evident, which is that you can't steal what isn't property in the first place. So, logically, the idea that property, per se, is theft is destroyed by the notion that before that first person put a fence around some property, it wasn't property. You can't steal what isn't property. You can only steal what is property.

It's theft because before being encirlced everybody could enjoy the benefits of that land. After it became legally property, in most cases everyone else is excluded from enjoying the benefits of that land. Whether it was called "property" originally is irrelevant.

Well, before the first encircling, nobody owned the land, and it was in the metaphorical state of nature.

If someone goes there and "enjoys the benefits" of the land, then they are stealing it, aren't they? Because they are using it when someone else might. For example, if someone comes through for a week and puts up a shelter, he's just as much stolen that bit of land as he would if he put up a white picket fence. If he in any way excludes others, then he's exercising property rights over the land. Excluding someone from being able to sleep in your bed on the ground is exercising a property right, and so theft under the Proudhon concept. There's no rational basis for saying that putting up a fence is theft, but putting up a lean-to is not.

[pErvinalia]

Exclusion is the critical point. Legal property rights is exclusive use. Using the land for recreation or personal food gathering isn't excluding anyone else from doing to same (in theory, anyway; at some point physical/biological constraints will occur). So yes, you CAN 'steal' (under Proudhon's notion) what isn't property in the first place.

[DaveDodo007]

What have you faggots got against capitalism?

[JimC]

A capitalist ate my uncle!

[pErvinalia]

What have you faggots got against capitalism?

Because it enriches idiots like Donald Trump and the government doesn't give me enough free money!

[rainbow]

What have you faggots got against capitalism?

Hey you're the one that seems to be enjoying them giving it to you up the arse, so who are you calling faggots?

[laklak]

It's not gay if you're just doing it for a mate.

[pErvinalia]

I'm a capitalist, but I didn't sell for profit...

[rainbow]

Then, the mood of the rally soured, according to the video. Someone spied a counterprotester and yelled, “Get him.” Two men tackled him to the ground, one throwing fists, another spraying mace.

As the counterprotesters backed cautiously away from the larger crowd, a man taunts them, “You can’t run. You can’t hide.”

Socialists pretending to be Trump supporters, I guess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 0fb7c1e059

[pErvinalia]

It's not really a good idea to try and fight rednecks. If you are going to do it you need numbers. From the reports I heard about the California fight, the counter-Trumps were outnumbered about 10-1.