So Congo Free State was the property of king Leopold and he was the single owner there. Can this man be considered close to ancaps?
Leopold II of Belgium
He didn't homestead the Congo and it already belonged to the natives so I don't think it counts.
they weren't using the land productively.
He homesteaded it and they violated the NAP by staying their without paying their rents. would have been better if a private court handled hand counting, of course.
shut up aggressor, leopold was just defending himself.
Well he's got that part down pat.
I know you're memeing but it's important to actually know what ancaps believe and why it's a problem. If you're arguing with them and just throwing out memes they don't believe in you're not going to convince anyone.
Pretty close. It was basically his plantation.
i've heard ancaps/properts say it's ok to take land from "primitives" because they aren't using it as productively as capital would
that could be a minority of them
Pretty sure that's a minority.
Engels believed the same thing
maybe you could pull out a quote, but I'd assume he'd think it's inevitable, not ethical
feudalism and monarchy so no.
who creates all those shit threads and why?
OP kinda looks like he was making fun of mods for not deleting all those other shit threads, but the rest of the thread seems just like regular satire about how ancaps are stupid.
I'm Belgian and attended a public Catholic high school. The building's main hall had portraits of every monarch since the country's founding, including Léopold II. The worst part being that nobody batted an eye because there never were any mention of the whole Congo Free State controversy in our history books or classes. In fact, in Belgium he's often referred to as the "Builder-King" thanks to his commissioning of many urban projects — conveniently keeping quiet about the fact that they were mostly financed with the very wealth he extracted from the Congolese his mercenaries maimed.
But Europe and its education systems are actually overrun by white guilt, ain't that right?
You cannot own something without an understanding of ownership. They occupied the land, they did not own it as ownership is a legal term enforced with violence.
john Locke argued basically the same thing.
I thought land ownership didn't exist
I think he is referring to the US conquest of California from Mexico and Engels positive view of that as that meant it would be industrially developed. Mexico was feudal at the time.
It is but the Aristocracy gets a pass because they still exist and have been fully behind the "European" project since its infancy.
When was the last time the upper classes were blamed by the idpolers for colonialism instead of the commoners? No it is always the commoner, the working class man who gets the blame for he cannot defend himself.
I dunno, the bourgies got pretty much all the blame in my history class. It's kind of hard not to blame them when virtually all colonialism is done by the so-called United East Indian Company. Of course, the bourgies are simultaneously also praised with myths of the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "hard working frugal Calvinist merchants" and crap like that.
Bourgeis aren't the Aristocracy, they are off limits. The idpolers still blame the common man collectively for everything.
I have absolute NEVER heard anyone claim anything like that. Drop the persecution complex, it makes you sound retarded.
Who is responsible for slavery, the quasi aristocratic bourgeois who owned slaves or the collective known as the "whites"? Which narrative gets taught in schools,a slave holding minority of rich fucks or the collective know as "whites"?
Well, considering the Congo Free State was not even mentioned in my books… None.
Whenever the question of colonialism crimes was brought up, responsibility was usually associated with the ruling class though often effectively hand-waved as well-meaning or necessary. I even remember my teacher stating that international criticism steamed from mere jealousy rather than rightful indignation.
I've never heard anyone blame the whole Belgian people for cutting the Congolese's hands. Especially knowing that colonialism wasn't all that popular with the Belgian man-in-the-street to begin with.
His soldiers were double-billed as a private court, this was agreed to of course by virtue of the fact that the natives were still on his property. All in all a very ethical use of the NAP.