Hey there Holla Forums

every single step you just mentioned buddy

Don't you have cuck porn to analyze?

Who is this stealing from? This presumes the landowner has traded some kind of good or money in exchange for letting a mining company extract those resources, if he didn't do it himself.

I'm actually not a statist, but I'm using terms I KNOW you will understand.

Come on, deets. Don't just leave me hanging like that, commie.

...

...

You don't recognize structural violence because you're a bootlicking faggot.

Read Zizek. Nobody here justifies theft and murder.

From where the landowner got the land?

Well shit, OP

Property is theft m8. Getting rid of it is just restoring the fruits of our labor to its rightful owners.

Is wrong. Counterrevolutionaries who take up arms should be killed, but that's war, not murder. Perhaps some crimes committed by counterrevolutionaries also deserve capital punishment - but that's still not murder. Don't most countries have the death penalty for treason?

by pulling himself up by the bootstraps ofcourse, you just need to buy more money

Structural violence is inherent in every form of communism and socialism. Either the state or an abstract blob called "The People" that is nothing more than a front for mob-government wields a monopoly on violence and extracts resources from people under implied threat of violence and redistributes them as it sees fit to people who neither worked for those resources nor have any title to them whatsoever.

He applied some form of labor to it, presumably, like building a house on it, tilling a quarter of it for subsistence crops, and protecting it from external aggression.

Spooky.

If you did I wouldn't be happy about it and I'd kill the shit out of you, but what you didn't wouldn't be inherently or morally wrong, it would just be.

Also your mistake is in equating law with Justice (Justice is a spook too but you clearly believe in it). Slaves were "lawfully obtained", beating your life was lawful, that doesn't make those things just. So violating the law for the purposes of enhancing the freedom of the population is just.

Stopped here.

So if I take you by force, spend my time training you to be the ultimate submissive fuckslut, and have the means to protect my new fucktoy from external aggression, you are now my property to use and sell as I see fit?

You can only own yourself. You cannot own land.

Justify private property. Tell me how it isn't theft

Structural violence exists in all systems. Society can't function without coercion in some form.

And how does capitalism not do this? Does it not have a state? Is private property not maintained through force?

That's actually what socialism doesn't do, and what makes it different from capitalism. Only labour produces wealth, and therefore only the people who labour are the producers of wealth. The capitalists, by definition not labourers, do not produce any wealth, rather they extract the wealth produced by others.

Yes. In every process you mentioned, only the proles actually do the labour and they receive rewards lower than what their labour is worth of.

My private property exists as an extension of my very being. It facilitates my continued living and well-being, and separating me from my private property causes definite hardship and very likely deleterious effects on my health. My property and my self are connected and only if I choose to sell, trade, or give away that property does it cease to be an extension of me.

It's always hilarious how libertardians fear rule by the majority (mob rule as they call it) more than rule by the minority (because the rich deserve their wealth and create jobs and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps)

You're a reactionary misantrophe behind a mask of idiotic notions of freedom

If they are being compensated for their labor with goods or money that they agreed to work in exchange for, then no theft whatsoever has occurred. If you think you're getting a bad deal as a worker, then you attempt to renegotiate or you stop working there and find another job that you think pays you fairly.

So how the fuck can you pretend to be 'individualist' and 'liberty loving'?
Read this marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

If property is an extension of your being (it's not) then you must logically oppose capitalism. This is because the accumulation of property necessarily limits the property of others, since private property is by definition exclusionary. If one person owns something others are prevented from using it. Therefore when somebody grows rich, they enhance their freedom and their being while artificially restricting that of others, constituting a violation of the Liberty Principle.

Holy shit, i knew stuff like BIID exists but that's next level…

Total absence of critical thinking, total absence of knowledge in history or philosophy. 100% pure reactionary.
Let me guess OP, you're an american, right?

There is more proles than there are bourgs.

We can outnumber, overpower, and terrorize you into doing our bidding and kill you if you refuse.

Might makes right.

Your life as my personal, perpetually warm onahole is an extension of my very being. It facilitates my continued living and well-being, and separating me from my obedient fucktoy causes definite hardship and very likely deleterious effects on my health. My fucktoy and my self are connected and only if I choose to sell, trade, or give away said fucktoy does it cease to be an extension of me.

You wouldn't be immoral for it because morality is a spook. That being said you're a pussy autist on an imageboard so it hardly matters

loser virgins like you actually can't do anything but masturbate in your parents' basement

There is no fair compensation, there is always theft. That is how bosses profit.

Barrier to entry alone completely disproves capitalism. Just look at something like heavy industry, are you gonna start up your own company, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and compete with the big fish? Monopoly is inherent to capitalism.

So if I point a gun to your head and tell you that you should give me your money if you don't want die and you voluntarily agree because that's the best option for you, then nothing unjust happened, right?

If property is an extension of my being then I must logically oppose any system that ever claims that I am not entitled to that which I exchanged labor, money or goods for because I happen to have more things in general than a person who does not happen to labor as hard or as much as I do and therefore has less. If property is an extension of my self then I must necessarily resist any attempt to redistribute my property to someone else because some unaccountable group who rules over me in some fashion has decided that someone else needs it more, even though that someone else has not performed the labor or exchanged the goods or wealth required to obtain that property.

Guess what communism/socialism does.

Yes. Welcome to Anclapistan.

Oh, I love these. They pick the most amazingly stupid strawmen to knock down.

Here's one for you.

By the way, was Venezuela real communism or socialism? :^)

That is initiation of force, which can never be justified. Furthermore, I was agreeing under significant duress (the threat of death), so nobody (except a tankie, maybe) would look at that and say that was fine.

Yay maymay post contest!

Venezuela is a social democracy, similar to Norway or China.

So starving on the streets is not the threat of death?

That's cute! Here's the original, though. imgur.com/a/f4x2r Good thing I had it lying around.