What a charming euphemism for vandalism.
So you agree that it's not violence? Do you then agree that, indeed, on the day in question it was the government's gang which initiated the violence?
Now you seem to want to attach this term "vandalism" to it, are you really that desperate to appeal to emotion that you prefer inaccurate emotionally-laden terms over accurate empirical ones, such as "the rearrangement of molecules of inanimate objects [of private property]"? As you can see you can even add your belief system about private property in if you want.
I'll have to remember that the next time I feel the urge to go destroy stuff I didn't make.
An interesting remark. Much of the basis for the left's opposition to capitalism is exactly that under capitalism workers do
not get possession of the full product of their labour. You should also maybe be mindful of the difference between private property (ie of the means of production) and personal property (yeh toothbrushez) - no homes or so are getting damaged, are they?
Which will probably be never, since I'm not a sociopathic loser, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared.
Interesting.
So as far as I understand it you (as in general you but including you personally) promoting a belief system called "private property" (is this going to be one of those unicorn things?). It seems to be a specific map from physical objects to persons, such that a person being associated with a physical object means this person has the right to decision making power over the molecular arrangement of said object. Where "right" means that should another person usurp said decision making power that the state is now justified in the use of violence against that other person.
Some properties of this belief system appear to be:
- Persons is not equal to people. It can also be an abstract entity called a "company". This reminds of that
Jabba thread where persons can exist without a presence in the natural world. Maybe the codomain of "private property" should be called Jabba-persons instead.
- If we look at the specific map there doesn't seem to be any rational or desirable properties to it. The physical objects are associated with Jabba-persons in an apparently arbitrary way such that none of the following properties hold: 1. Everyone gets equal decision making power. 2. Decision making power is democratically decided. 3. Jabba-persons get decision making power over that which they made themselves.
- It is woefully inaccurate by mixing a bunch of distinct concepts into one. For example it includes both someone having a toothbrush and a multinational corporation having a chain of factories. Neither the arguments of use (I'm the one using my toothbrush) or emotional attachment (It's
my toothbrush damnit!) which could be employed in the former case hold for the latter.
Basically it's a crappy, violent and murderous belief system. Poverty is violence, after all, and poverty does kill - as opposed to, say, rearranging a limo.
The way said belief system is defended, after a group of non-believers were seen expressing a lack of belief in it, is also pretty revealing.
There are the ritualistic denunciations of the non-believers, as expected lacking any sort of either rationality or empiricism, but consisting entirely of appeals to base emotion with rhetoric of "idiots" and "despise". Responding using the same rhetoric but directed at the militant believers entails moderator action, so it's one of the unstated official belief systems around here. Which is amazing by itself since the adoption of this belief system requires the acceptance of the concept of Jabba-persons.
There are the claims that expressing non-adoption of said belief system constitutes violence. In what way it is supposed to be violence is never explained. Is expressing disbelief in "God" as violent as expressing disbelief in "Bank of America"? They're both Jabba-persons after all. But then the rhetorical use of the term violence is solely as an appeal to emotion, through an association between "violence" and "bad". Yet one wonders that if people have such a problem with violence then why they aren't focusing on all the quite unambiguous violence which did happen there that day, rather than desperately seeing violence where there is none.
All in all, a crappy, violent and murderous belief system defended at the level of a raving religious cult when someone expresses disbelief in their deity.
