Hello Holla Forums, i myself am a liberal but im interested in your views, can you help me convert my ideology...

The racial disparity is obvious when you look at the numbers. For example for every 100 stops, blacks were far more likely to be searched or arrested even though whites were far more likely to actually have contraband.

You're missing the point: correlation is not equivalent to causation. Because there are more blacks in prison does not mean that it is the result of letting Asian and White criminals waltz freely (i.e. unfairly following black criminals). Like I said, you're discounting the variation of criminal activity between groups. Taller people make more money. That isn't evidence of some bias in the workforce. Indian-Americans make more money as a household. Isn't evidence of some massive conspiracy benefitting Indians.
By the way, "Missouri Attorney General" isn't actually a source. It's a position. What and where has this individual, who remains unnamed, 'said' such a claim?

You didn't read what I said. I am pointing out that for every 100 times a black person is stopped, there were more cases where they were searched and/or arrested when compared to every 100 stops of white people. However white people were actually more likely to be carrying contraband. This means that black people are subjected to more intensive scrutiny even though they are less likely to be committing a crime.

1. Communism hasn’t been tried, but Socialism has
2. The holomdore was a naturally occurring famine made worse by Kulaks burning grain
3. It was better than what it was before communism
4.Same as number three

A correlation. Not causing or linking anything.
According to who? Your source has no citations. It's actually true that a greater proportion of blacks visit the ER due to drug-related issues than whites do. Source: samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf.
Table 6, page 30. Not sure where you're getting your sources from, though.
A correlation is not equivalent to a causation. Asians aren't arrested at rates comparable to blacks in the US. This isn't evidence of a racial bias.
Here's a source debunking this old myth: nber.org/papers/w22399. Worth a read. The author is black himself and he is on record claiming the results were “the most surprising result of my career.”

OP here, i forgot to ask about China, what's the general consesus about them? I'm not talking about modern day china but Mao's China

1. Only insofar as movements have arisen and receded that strive towards a Communist endgoal. Communism itself has never been achieved to date, though looking at the timeline by which new types of class societies emerge this is to be expected: modern capitalism is only ~200-250 years old.
2. It's doubtful Stalin intentionally starved people in instances like the Holodomor, nor was the damages targeted to one group or another. Starvation did occur, but it was the intersection of many problems including but not limited to drought, disease, poorly-timed economic policy changes, food-wasting/destruction efforts used by those opposing said economic changes, infrastructure still being in the process of modernization, and poorly planned relief efforts.
3. It was better than what came before in most cases. The places that ended up under Soviet influence never had the same development that Western Europe had to begin with, but they did see improvement over the time socialists ran the country.
4. Again, it's a poor country, but it's always been a poor country for its working citizens. Castro and company did good work to improve conditions, even in the face of an embargo that essentially starved their country of outside trade/resources.

They had excess grain. They refused to cede the excess grain when demanded. They burned the grain so nobody else could fucking eat. I have little sympathy for the Kulaks.

Here's some more info about drug use: samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf.
Figure 2.12 on page 27.
Since contraband is also weapons use, here's some info about weapons use, too: bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf. Shorter than the rest, so just read it all.
Not sure where this greater contraband issue is, though.

Kulaks really did fucking deserve it, starving people is a crime, bunch of sick fucks

Shit, still not the case in the United States if you're born poor.

They did, not the government. If ownership is irrelevant, how can the state lay claim to something with such gusto? It wasn't theirs, anyways. Like I said, blaming the rape victim for killing herself because she didn't want to get raped. Why'd you try to rape her in the first place? It's similar to scorched earth. "Hey, why'd you destroy all this stuff?"
"Well, why'd you invade us?"

See above.

I'm not talking about incarceration rates, I'm talking about rates of police scrutiny vs actually committing a crime. If blacks are getting searched and arrested at higher rates even though searches of whites are more likely to yield hits, then that means that black people are being searched and arrested for no good reason. It implies that they only search whites when they are sure they are carrying, but search blacks based on random suspicion.

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/04/17-disturbing-statistics-from-the-federal-report-on-ferguson-police/?utm_term=.ce61e923936e

...

1. Communism hasn't been achieved and depending on who you ask neither has socialism.
2. No, Stalin did not starve his people. There was a famine like there was before Stalin, but he didn't pay the clouds to not rain or some shit.
3. I don't know. I've talked to some that lived there and they said it wasn't as bad as some propaganda made it out to be, but not as good as western yuropoor.
4. It's probably not as bad as burger propaganda made it out to be, but given it's a small isolated island probably not the best. Still likely better than some of it's neighbors.

Read this .pdf
That must be your first book. Trust me. If you're atheist already you're going to understand 100% of it. Easily digestible literature.

That's true. The Eastern bloc had plenty of issues and I hesitate to even call it socialism, but I would rather be an average person there than a poor person in America.

Pic is somewhere in the upper Midwest of the US, I assume.
Thought it was Yugoslavia after the bombings until I saw the English graffiti

I grew up poor in burgerland, can confirm. It's either living on debt or languishing in squalor, often both.

1. Pre-Historic times / In the Stoneage and by accident, not with awareness.

2. Some, all autocrats are bitches. He beat the Nazis through. He is more a grim dark anti-hero. Leave Morality out the window, good or bad doesn't exist. What Stalin did at least slayed far greater and more oppressive autoritarians.

3. Yes better than it was before but it didn't become what they dreamed of obviously.

4. Same as anywhere else "3rd world" Capitalist or not.
Autocrats = bitches
always remember that

Tankies are retards.

Im really liking all the Titoist stuff i've been reading

1. No, unless you count small anarcho-communist groups and primitive communism.
2. Holodomor did happen but there is no evidence Stalin actually intentionally tried to starve people. It was from disease that destroyed crops and some drought made worse by Stalin's policies but the same policies also likely saved lives elsewhere so it's hard to say if it was good or bad management but I would go with bad but also a hard choice that was not easily avoidable.
3. A lot of people are still for it so it couldn't have been that bad if it was.
4. Good healthcare I heard but because of sanctions against them by the US previously they are behind on development.

To answer your questions, OP…
1) No. The only nominally socialist or communist movements to ever gain and solidify power in a nation-state have been Marxist-Leninist, and their idea of a implementing socialism is having a "vanguard" of professional revolutionaries who use state power to abolish the class divide. In reality, they just end up putting themselves in the place of the ruling class. Tito's Yugoslavia was the closest anyone has ever gotten to socialism, since most workers had democratic control over their workplaces.
2) Famines were extremely common in Tsarist Russia, and less common in the USSR, until they were eventually done away with by around 1950. The Holodomor was an instance where certain groups of farmers resisted the collectivization by burning grain, which triggered a famine. The question is whether he let the famine play out naturally, or targeted the shortage area to starve his political opponents. On that question, I really don't know - but what I do know is that once the Kulaks burned the grain, the famine was gonna kill SOMEBODY regardless of what he did.
3) Depends on where you were. Just like the US in that regard, except the poorest in America had it worse than the poorest in the USSR.
4) Same as #3, I suppose.

Liking capitalism is natural for liberals.

Yugo flag is also p. aesthetic. Just ordered pic related the other day for my milsurp jacket. Got the last one from eBay.

Tito isn't capitalist at all.

Communism is not something that you "try." It is something that you create. The USSR under Stalin got the closest to achieving communism than any state to date.

...

Wow, Tito actually seems truly based after all.

Also is it posible to like both anarchists and MLs or do you guys just pick sides out of spite

Capitalism is defined by the employer > employee relation, where the employer owns the MoP while the laborer sells his or her labor power in an exploitive scenario in order to survive.
Market socialism does not have that relation, therefore it is not capitalism.

Commodity form has nothing to do with it. It existed before capitalism, and it'll exist after capitalism.

But I've already demonstrated that the contraband possession rates don't reflect what you purport. There is a racial disparity when it comes to criminal activity tilting in the favour of blacks, not whites.

Yield hits in terms of contraband possession? Demonstrably untrue, the entire study the WP links to has already been dismissed: there is no racial bias in policing, the evidence for the conspiracy doesn't exist. Pointing to a correlation and calling it a causation doesn't count.

It's because there is a racial disparity in criminal activity: blacks commit more criminal activity. Here's some more info on criminal activity in Missouri: mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/CIM/CrimeInMissouri.html.
Check the drug survey I linked above. Blacks use drugs at slightly higher rates than whites do (12 or older, 2002-2013, figure 2.12/page 27 from samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf). It isn't "whites are a greater hit" as you claim. Again, the assumption that whites are walking free because cops don't care about white drug use relies on unfalsifiable claims: you don't know the crimes that aren't committed and reported yet, it's pure speculation. And claiming that there is a bias is not really a tenable position, it's already been debunked.

Is there any titoist theory book? All of this stuff im reading about Yugoslavia seems pretty nice

Well, I tried communism once back in college…

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

So yes. Communism is an inherent reaction to, and therefore a part of, the material conditions of capitalism.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Mostly it was the bad weather, and the silly Kulaks. Stalin´s policies of collectivization didn´t help though.

I don know, I wasn´t there.

Never been, but from what I´ve heard and read, there is a lot of poverty. The education and healthcare systems are both superb, especially considering the level of poverty. Far from ideal, but it is much better for the working class then it was before the revolution.

There are as many different ideologies on the left as there are people, so it's not like anarchism and M-L are the only options. You can make up your own mind about each group and go from there, but in general we all agree that any left wing ideology except Nazbol is better than Capitalism. Anything we fling at each other is just bantz.

Isn't Communism stateless?

A comparison is not an equivalence, btw.

It is, which is why USSR wasn't communism. It wasn't even socialism because the workers had no control over their workplaces.

It's true though. It's kind of sad I guess but it is true.

I'm not suggesting that whites use drugs at higher rates, I'm saying that when whites are searched, these searches are more likely to yield positive results. Blacks however are more likely to be searched overall. What this suggests is that cops are quicker to search blacks even when they aren't carrying, ie cops are making assumptions about them based on race. Whites on the other hand only get searched when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion, which is why searches of whites yield better hit rates.

Dismissed by who? Based on what?

That's not what I'm doing, I'm pointing out that blacks are more likely to be searched when they are doing nothing wrong.

So you are basically admitting that black people get searched more because they as a group are more likely to commit crimes, but this is racial profiling. Searching somebody because they come from a particular group at a higher risk of crime is a racial bias. No different than assuming an Asian is good at math because China scores high in math testing.

Slightly dishonest. It means that the most infamous example of Communist application wasn't Communistic because it failed to converge upon the actual definition. It's a self-defeating concept, anyways: how can you have a singular revolution while currency and markets exist globally? Everyone takes part, or nobody does.
It also means that there is a lack of historical accounts of successful implementations of Communism that didn't devolve into whatever you want to call the USSR: all that's left is idealism.

If the state has need for a highway, is the seizure of land you're not using something comparable to rape?
If you're hoarding medicine you don't need, while thousands die for lack of it, is it's seizure to save those lives comparable to rape?
If you're hoarding food you can't possibly eat while millions starve, is it's seizure even remotely comparable to rape?

NO, YOU FUCKING RETARD, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF YOU AND YOU'RE NOT USING IT. The only one perpetrating violence against anyone else is the hoarder.

Lemme tell you about this thing called flag related

Pathetic.

Please read The German Ideology.

This is a good post.

Disgusting.

Fug, shitposting flag was still on.

Socialism necessarily involves the abolition of commodity production for exchange. Read Anti-Duhring by Engels.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/

Ah, thanks for clarifying.
Then whites proportionally use drugs at higher rates in order for searches to yield 'positive results'. This is not supported by the evidence I've cited: the reverse is true, but just barely. It's actually kind of even, but beware the self-reports, always trust drug tests.
Because they commit more crime than other groups. Asians are a lower threat, in general, because they are not as criminal.
What assumption? In Missouri, it's factual that blacks are disproportionately involved in criminal activity. Also, the institutional bias thing was already debunked: nber.org/papers/w22399.
On what basis do you determine that the black searches did not have probable cause? Simply because there were more of them? Or that they weren't as successful (even though drug use statistics above refutes this). That doesn't mean there wasn't probable cause involved.
See above.
But they are more criminal, and the drug use that you pull isn't supported by the empirical evidence. You're also appealing to the unknown and assuming white criminals are walking free without having knowledge of said crimes.
Not really, it's effective policing. If one group is more criminal than the other, they are a greater risk.
Based on empirical truth.
But Chinese students do score higher. If you examine an African student and a Chinese student, the rule still applies. The exception doesn't negate it.
You're also admitting to having some evidence of a lack of probable cause. I'll ask that you cite the source of info from which you derive this. The whole 'bias' claim isn't supported by the evidence.

I like Tito and Yugoslavia and I respect them for all kinds of reasons but don't be fooled. I even used to post under a Yugo flag. Yugoslavia itself had many issues, including very real hierarchical structures within the workplace. This was largely because skilled workers and managers were in short supply, allowing them to dictate terms to the other workers and threaten them with quitting. It's also the case that the government was not particularly friendly to these unskilled workers when they tried to stand up to their white collar counterparts, and worker self management was in practice more propaganda than reality, although was probably more of a reality than in the USSR and friends.

As for market socialism itself it still maintains many problems associated with commodity production and the profit motive, such as the undermining of new technologies that threaten established industries, or profitable practices that hurt the public such as pollution, or the fact that only sufficiently profitable goods will be produced. Does that cancer cure cost too much to research? Then it won't be made, etc

I also wouldn't consider market socialism to really be socialism, since it doesn't actually socialize the means of production but just privatizes and democratizes it among the people directly participating in industry, ie the workers. However I don't consider it capitalism either since it doesn't involve exploitation or wage labour.

I also think that it is a good stepping stone from capitalism to true socialism, since the tendency towards monopoly will effectively consolidate industry into a series of democratic worker owned industrial organizations. It essentially naturally transforms into syndicalism. Market socialism is an admirable short to mid-term goal, but it is insufficient as an end point imo.

Yugoposters are still pretty cool tho and I want to be friends with them

Who owned the land? If there were homes on it, you cannot do that.
It would be 'rape' in that it is aggression without consent.
Determined by who? And who is the rightful benefactor of said medicine, as determined by who? If my ownership of 'x' is irrelevant, yours is just as useless.
See above.
Doesn't have to be a part of my body. I can purchase a house and not live in it to 'flip' it. I can renovate it and add some improvements to the property and sell it at a higher price. I don't have to 'use' the house by living in it. And your assessment of my purchase isn't really relevant. If I see a parked Lamborghini just gathering dust, it isn't my place to assess how it is just 'begging to be taken out for a spin' by me, the Lamborghini-less.

Alright, I'm gonna have to go real slow here.
Any act of ownership, just like any political act, is an act of violence. The power of the state is used to enforce both, with the understanding that failure to abide by the rules will result in state violence being used against you.
To claim ownership of something is to exert violent force against everyone else who would have it. For things which are being used - your home, your toothbursh, the food in your cupboard - this is justified because the deprivation of it would cause you harm. This is your PERSONAL property.
For the things which you are not using - a second house, a stockpile of grain that you could never possibly eat, etc - this is unuustified. You are exerting violence over others by denying them the use of something which you, yourself, do not need. You merely wish to use it out of avarice. This is PRIVATE property.

By allowing others to die of starvation while you hoard grain for your own profit, you would be just as guilty in their murder as if you had stabbed each of them with a butcher knife.
Seizing the excess grain is not an act of violence against you, it is forcing you to cease your act of violence against them.
Even CAPITALIST states recognize this, which is why they have the practice of eminent domain - the seizure of private property for the public good.

Ownership does not necessitate a state. This presupposes that individual authority over the Lamborghini sitting and gathering dust is non-existent. I can hire people to guard the house I am going to flip. I pay them and they sign a contract, so that they stand guard and defend the house. You don't need a government to own things. This also assumes all the state does is protect ownership, while simultaneously taxing it.
"Would have it". Like I said above, if my ownership is irrelevant, so is yours. You also forfeit any claim you might have had.
Besides, you cannot justify your ownership of the house I bought to flip. You have no deed proving ownership, cannot defend your argument in a court of law, or defeat my security guards to take my house. You didn't even buy it: I did. People not having things while others do=/=theft of their rightfully owned items because they don't have any tenable position fulfilling their ownership claim.
"your assessment of my purchase isn't really relevant."
See above. You didn't buy it, you have no deed to defend it, you cannot take it from me. It isn't yours, it is mine. I can purchase a bunch of food and not eat it. It isn't my duty to provide to others if they lack said food, nor do I have any obligation to care for a grown adult: that is their own duty.
See the point about your irrelevant opinion above.
Presupposing an obligation I have to people who don't have food. Also absolving all agency from the starving people/the parents for giving birth to them. The parents are to blame for birthing children they could not support, not me for having more than them and defending my purchases from thieves.
You don't own it, so you have no claim. See the point I made earlier about scorched earth.
Private ownership of the MoP… except when it isn't. I guess socialism is the public ownership of the MoP… except when it isn't. Internal consistency ftw!
Yeah, it isn't a catchall or as universal as you claim. They can't just take any plot of land.

That's not what it means at all. It means that when whites are searched they are more likely to be found to be carrying drugs. I know that whites aren't as likely to use drugs. The problem is that blacks are more likely to be searched even in cases where they aren't using drugs.

Because they didn't yield as many results. If there are no drugs present then there can't be any evidence of drug use can there? That means that they were being searched despite the absence of anything suggesting that they were carrying drugs.

You clearly don't know what racial bias means then if you think this. Yes, blacks are more likely to commit a crime, but that doesn't mean that if somebody is black that they are a criminal. Racial profiling is when an assumption is made about a person based on their race instead of any specific evidence that that particular individual is committing a crime. Pulling somebody over and searching them because their race is more likely to commit a crime is racial profiling because it is done regardless of any evidence in that particular case. By your logic it would be reasonable for the police to investigate every white person they meet as a serial killer since whites are more likely to be serial killers. This is essentially what is happening to blacks with police searches.

At least put on the retard flag. It's there for you.

So the blacks don't carry the drugs on their person, then? Why didn't you just say that?
Evidence supports it, too.
Because they are more criminal than whites. They commit criminal activity at greater proportions. Black males are vastly over-represented in prisons. And, as the empirical analysis shows, it isn't a result of institutional bias.
That's not what probable cause means. It is also an a posteriori assessment: obviously we now after the fact and seizure. The reasonable grounds are justified prior to the seizure, that's when they state "we had probable cause to search him".
Again, retrospect is 20/20. That isn't what probable cause means.
I don't think that. I said that they attract greater rate of criminal activity. That doesn't mean they are all criminal, it's stating that officers are aware of which groups are disproportionately criminal and proceed accordingly. You don't expect Asian criminal gang shootings as much as you do black ones. That doesn't mean every black person is in a gang, or that no Asians can be in gangs: it's a statement observing the trends.
Probable cause, yeah. That's what the officers base their policing on, paired with a knowledge of said trends I mentioned. Read the empirical analysis on the bias I cited above, it refutes this myth definitively.
This doesn't happen, the officers have probable cause.
That's not what I stated. I will state that officers are cognizant of this statistic. It doesn't mean that Asians cannot be serial killers, it means that whites are serial killers at greater rates.
I'll cite it again, you aren't really reading it: nber.org/papers/w22399.

Wal-Mart also has security guards. Is this just a convenient way to dip out of defending your arguments? Kind of obvious, really.

In your ancap fantasy, what happens when the guards decide to just kill you and take the shit you'd paid them to guard?

How is employment of security guards anarchist? My entire point is that property protection is just to state protection, it can include individual protection, too. If I pay you to guard my flipped house project for me, if you try and kill me and take my money, nobody will trust your services and the government will arrest you for murder.
"Why doesn't the security guard at some small business just kill the owners?" It's against the law, they will be punished, they won't have a great reputation after it. You're also assuming that I force them to work. I don't force them to sign anything, they choose my employment over my neighbour because they want me over him. There is a degree of choice you are either willfully or ignorantly dismissing.

So we're back to my point about state violence enforcing the rules. Since ownership is enforced by the state, that means that ownership is enforced by violence. So denying someone life because you own what they need IS an act of violence against them. Therefore, they are justified in the use of violence against you to prevent it.

"Any act of ownership, just like any political act, is an act of violence. The power of the state is used to enforce both, with the understanding that failure to abide by the rules will result in state violence being used against you."
Your own words. Specific to property rights, not laws against murder.
If the security guard kills the shop owners to take their things, then he is caught by the state or the owner's guards kill him in his attempt. There is usually more than just one security guard. Again, it's also bypassing the choice of the guard, too.
Not necessarily. The example was the state and laws against murder.
It is defended against thieves with no property claims that can be justified, yes.
And we're back to unsubstantiated obligation. "Presupposing an obligation I have to people who don't have food. Also absolving all agency from the starving people/the parents for giving birth to them. The parents are to blame for birthing children they could not support, not me for having more than them and defending my purchases from thieves."
You can try, the security guards will stop you or the police will. You can try and loot a Wal-Mart because poor people/their parents have no decision-making ability and we all have an obligation to them (because adults are children now), but loss prevention will seize you for theft because you don't own it, nor do the starving people you want to help (by killing people because dude consequentialism lmao).

What obligation do the starving people have to not take your food?

What obligation does a thief have to the owners of what he covets? Nothing. That's why they are thieves, they take what they do not own. If they actually own the house I'm flipping, then they prove the ownership. Otherwise, by definition, it cannot be 'unjust extortion' if I am flipping a house and others don't have one to do so if they never owned it to begin with.

What obligation do they have to DIE rather than not take your food?

I'm not asking them to die, I'm saying that it is greedy of them to not only covet what they do not own, but to act violently against those who have more to atone for the poor life decisions of their parents/themselves. If the parents have not saved up a college fund for their child, why give birth knowing that your kid will not succeed in life? It isn't greedy for owners to defend against thieves.
Your statement also assumes that they have a rightful cause to my food. They do not. Just because they are disadvantaged doesn't mean they get anything they want. We already do that with welfare: people who are poor get money and services from the government. Starvation only occurs on mass-scale events in places like Africa and India, where privatization of industry doesn't exist.

My assertion is that you do not have a right full cause to deny them life, when it would not bring you harm to relinquish the food.
Your entire philosophy on this is inherently selfish. You assert that your desire to have the food is more important than their need to have it. And also that somehow a piece of paper gives you the right to deny it.

This is patently absurd when viewed in light of the fact that you have to use force to make them not touch "your" food. You are asserting that your act of violence is legitimate when it suits your desires, but their act of force is not legitimate when it facilitates their survival.

So again, what OBLIGATION do they have to simply die rather than eating the food that is in front of them?

Some free-states and occupied areas )like Catalonia or Luxembourg's revolution) were kinda communistic.
There were famines under him but he didn't cause them. When people talk about Stalin killing people, typically they are Kulaks, Nationalist anti-communist who hoarded food so other people couldn't eat.
It was and it wasn't. They were statist and therefore had more intrest in maintaining themselves over their people's good. Though, in terms of freedom, they are somewhat arguably better than the US in some regards. George Lukas said about it "I had to act in the interest of the state and the companies, Soviet directors only had to act in the interest of the state." So, in some terms the Eastern Bloc is better in terms of freedom, through they were materially poorer than the west.
It's a second world country. There is poverty and food is rationed, but like the Eastern Bloc it is also arguably better for artist and scientist. The healthcare in Cuba also prohibits large-scale health problems.

Personally, I feel converting conservatives is more worth-while than liberals, but it's nice to see liberals questioning propaganda.

Let's stick to assertions instead of namecalling me an "retard" before we agree to disagree, huh?
My entire premise is that your assessment of that which you do not own is irrelevant. I might think it mighty unfair that I lack in water or wealth to purchase water. That does not give me, or any have-nots, the justification to steal water from a Wal-Mart. Just a quick caveat to add that welfare usage disallows large-scale starvation of that calibre, at least in the US/first world, so this is just a scenario we're discussing.
So, if you think "meh, what is Wal-Mart to do if they lose one more water bottle", it is irrelevant. Your perception is not relevant because Wal-Mart owns the water, not you, and they have no obligation to you. They don't owe you anything to make you not be thirsty/hungry.
For wanting to keep what I own? Your entire philosophy is selfish because you promote theft based on arbitrary perceptions of what is being 'used' and non-existent obligations.
Yes. I have food because I own it, not them. I don't owe them to not starve. Before you become conveniently outraged, let's touch back into reality and remember the whole welfare state providing. But in our scenario with no welfare state, yes. I own what I own, not them. Any claim they make on my behalf is irrelevant.
In a court of law, yes. It is a deed proving ownership. That's my argument proving my case, the law is on my side. In a matter of individual property defense, it would be the loss prevention pinning you on the ground for trying to steal a water bottle that is the determining factor, not a piece of paper.
Yes, you have to use force to subdue thieves. Criminals don't magically disappear. That's the law enforced by the state and, in our Wal-Mart example, loss prevention kicking you out.
It is a reaction to the initial action. They don't go out and kick people out of the store they were never in and accuse them of goods they never stole. What a ridiculous statement. That's not how the law works and that isn't how loss prevention works in our Wal-Mart example.
I don't owe them anything. I'll make an educated guess based on no evidence and state that you have probably had something to eat today. I cannot accuse you of some unjust extortion you've committed against me simply because you had something to eat today and I didn't. People having things=/=violence against people not having things they never owned to begin with.
Like I said, thieves have no obligation to the law or to abide by Wal-Mart's code of conduct. Wal-Mart can kick you out of their stores because you attempted to steal something, which is exactly what they do. They have no obligation to allow your unsubstantiated ownership claims.

The thief is the one who uses force to deny the necessities of life to others to further their own greed. And I'm glad you brought up water, because this is an especially egregious case.
Water has, for almost all of human history, been a commons. The river, the stream, and the well we're all things owned by nobody, and available for all to use.
It wasn't until the 20th century that the practice of selling drinking water became commonplace. And of course, you can't sell it if it's freely available elsewhere. So those who would sell water took away the communal sources in order to force people to purchase it.
They created an artificial scarcity, and used it to extort a payment. And the consequence of jot paying is death.

This is a theft of the highest order, and simply hand-waving it away by saying "they bought it, it's theirs to do what they want with it" does not excuse the underlying violence. It is a criminal act that causes easily predictable and preventable death.

Until you recognize the violence inherent in claiming ownership of something, there's no point discussing this.

No. That is categorically untrue. A thief is somebody who steals another person's property. Something they don't own comes into their possession without actually buying it or trading it. So, if I come up to your apartment or house and steal the computer you're typing on because I don't have one and Internet connection is a human right, I am a thief extending my personal woes onto your possessions.
Yeah, until companies/the government began to utilize the technology for proper water filtration to provide the service to the people. I'll take water from a tap or a store in Japan today versus 100 years ago from some river in Japan.
1) You don't have to buy bottled water, it is far more cheap when you turn on the tap in your house. 2) The companies who do filter water have a process that is separate from "the rivers and streams" you mention. Those still exist, you can go find a river and drink from it if you choose to. I choose to pay for utilities and have water that has undergone reverse osmosis filtration or whatever it is they do.
No, rivers and streams still exist. You can choose to drink from them if you want. You don't have to pay for it, you can drink from them if you choose. There are also public water fountains, too.
No, the 'commune' didn't own it. Theft relates directly to unjust acquisition of something. You have to first have a claim to said thing. Without it, your claims are irrelevant.
There is no underlying violence because the obligations don't exist.
Lol, based on what criminal code? Can you cite it, please? In what first-world nation does such a 'criminal' code exist?
It assumes that everybody's original claim to ownership was justified, which it was not. That isn't even how things 'used to be', anyways. It is 'violent' in that it is a defensive act protecting you/your purchases against thieves just as a rapist getting shot is 'violent'. The whole premise is faulty and assumes the unjust, violent theft is actually theft. It's a defended property claim.

Where does your claim come from?
You bought it.
Where does the seller's claim come from?
He bought it.
Where does that person's claim come from?
He inherited it.
And so on down the line, until you get to someone who used force to exclude all others from using it. The initial claim was made by way of violence. All subsequent claims were enforced with the threat of violence. Therefore violence used to deny that claim is legitimate when the other person has need of its use, and you don't.

Let's not forget what we were talking about initially - peasants hoarding grain and burning it rather than turning it over. It was right to execute them, because they destroyed a life sustaining product that was already in short supply, just so that they could spite an authority that did not recognize their claim to it.

Google "criminally negligent homicide.". It's a crime pretty much everywhere, dipshit.

Well, you can inherit it, you can purchase it, you can trade it, etc.
See above.
Another example.
But you cannot. The class warfare has been dismissed because it is an untenable position that devolves every time it is attempted. Appealing to bureaucratic inabilities while simultaneously lauding around said bureaucrats as authorities is a self-refuting act.
No, there is no theft because the ownership wasn't universal. If I lay claim to the land that I live on, it isn't stealing it from others: that assumes a global entitlement complex.
Defence against violence, which you leave out.
His need is irrelevant. You're also discussing an archaic circumstance that is out-dated and irrelevant. People don't hunt game or gather berries, nor do they have to defend their tribes and homes from neighbouring invaders.
Yeah, I've already made my point on that. "Seizing crops when you don't own them is your own fault. It's like expecting to walk away without being charged of a crime when the woman you were trying to rape killed herself to not get raped by you."
So why try and steal it from them? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

1) That isn't a citation. 2) You're hypocritically appealing to criminal code while simultaneously berating property defence enforced by a state.