Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[Delphic Oracle]

So having Private Property is violent and murderous?

I remember in college we had a anarchist who screamd about how private property was evil,quoted Prodhon's "Property Is Theft" to the point of making people nauseous, but when his apartment was burgled and his stereo and television stolen, he acted like it was a Crime Against Humanity.

"Have you noticed that their stuff is **** and your **** is stuff?" -George Carlin

 

[Ziggurat]

No you observably can't.



Of course you do.

You can't talk, but you can act?

Oh, right: #anarchylogic.

 

[dudalb]

Arguing with an anarchist is like arguing with a fanatic believer in a Fundy religion: it's useless. They have a fervent devotion to their ideology that filters out reality.
Alternate Facts on Steroids.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No you observably can't.

Well not while also engaging in a high-risk activity likely to result in physical intervention of an attempt to break laws, obviously.

But man oh man have I got hours of my life I'd like to get back of people talking my ear off about private property (applies to both the faux anarchist and Ayn Rand ends of the spectrum, mind you :9).

Of course you do. Besides, there is no "unilaterally acting on a belief" but "failing to act on a unilaterally imposed belief".

Billions of people collectively interacting in this way is not a unilateral imposition of belief, it would be much closer to a universal one (but not quite). Point being, it is multilateral to the extreme. You're anthropomorphizing the social constructs themselves. I get it, that's the 'enemy image' that has to be responsible for throwing babies in volcanoes or whatever pathos argument turns the reigning ideas of ethics upside down so that smashing windows is proper behavior and stopping someone from smashing windows is "help, help, I'm being repressed! See the violence inherent in the system?!"

What damages to which others?

Damages as in the legal definition of damages.

Liability for what? Speech failing to include a certain assumption in its communicated ideas?

Well, I think speech that fails to include the assumption that hurling a brick into a window is not a helpful form of additional nonverbal cue should create a liability, yes.

 

[caveman1917]

This is funny, because earlier in the thread you were very insistent on drawing a distinction between violence and property damage.

No, between violence and non-violent protest. Property is a belief system, how is it supposed to be "damaged"?

So apparently owning property is violent

Yes it is. I'm sure you can figure it out. Hint: you can make it easily visible by observing the result when you express disbelief in a "inanimate object <-> Jabba-person" element of "private property". Property is theft after all.

but destroying it isn't.

Not necessarily. Most likely it isn't.

#anarchylogic

Yes. I'd encourage you to employ any sort of logic.

I guess: why stop at abolishing rules for society, why not abolish rules for reasoning.

Are you under the impression that what you are doing is reasoning?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, between violence and non-violent protest. Property is a belief system, how is it supposed to be "damaged"?

Things can be damaged. You think breaking things is not violence, but owning them is. #anarchylogic

Property is theft after all.

This is self-contradictory. You can only steal something if it belongs to someone. Otherwise you're not stealing it, you're just taking it. So if ownership is fiction, then theft is fiction too. So property cannot be theft, per your own beliefs.

Are you under the impression that what you are doing is reasoning?

I guess you can't really tell the difference.

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't say is it good. I said that punching Nazis work, that people should punch Nazis more often, and that Zig's (and others') belief system about "private property" is crappy, violent and murderous.

Irony.

How about if their beliefs in private property punched a Nazi?

I would be willing to part with a non-insubstantial amount of personal property if Neo-nazis and Black Bloc losers just started punching the crap out of each other.

Talk about a win-win!

 

[caveman1917]

Well not while also engaging in a high-risk activity likely to result in physical intervention of an attempt to break laws, obviously.

If speech failing to assume a certain belief system constitutes "engaging in a high-risk activity likely to result in physical intervention" then you clearly can not talk about it "all you want".

But man oh man have I got hours of my life I'd like to get back of people talking my ear off about private property (applies to both the faux anarchist and Ayn Rand ends of the spectrum, mind you :9).

You're always free to stop responding.

Billions of people collectively interacting in this way is not a unilateral imposition of belief, it would be much closer to a universal one (but not quite). Point being, it is multilateral to the extreme. You're anthropomorphizing the social constructs themselves. I get it, that's the 'enemy image' that has to be responsible for throwing babies in volcanoes or whatever pathos argument turns the reigning ideas of ethics upside down so that smashing windows is proper behavior and stopping someone from smashing windows is "help, help, I'm being repressed! See the violence inherent in the system?!"

Damages as in the legal definition of damages.

The belief system about the Jabba-persons and the map between them and inanimate objects? Why would you think it would provide you with a reasonable definition of "damage".

Well, I think speech that fails to include the assumption that hurling a brick into a window is not a helpful form of additional nonverbal cue should create a liability, yes.

What "additional nonverbal cue"? If you think that speech that fails to include the assumption of your crappy belief system should create a liability (aka blunt and indiscriminate violence apparently, if we look at the actions of these gangs of the "legalists") then I don't know what to say to you.

 

[caveman1917]

Things can be damaged.

No, things can be rearranged. Whether they are "damaged" is a value-judgement.

You think breaking things is not violence, but owning them is. #anarchylogic

This is self-contradictory. You can only steal something if it belongs to someone. Otherwise you're not stealing it, you're just taking it. So if ownership is fiction, then theft is fiction too. So property cannot be theft, per your own beliefs.

I don't see how this can be so difficult. There's nothing contradictory there. If decision-making power over some object is assigned to some Jabba-person then it is implicitly taken away from all other Jabba-persons.

I guess you can't really tell the difference.

I can tell the difference just fine.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Besides, this all conveniently ignores my original charge, which is that if you don't respect freedom of association, then you aren't an anarchist.

By inflicting upon others a form of interaction they do not consent to, you are violating their free association rights. Ergo, you are committing a violent act.

The base pattern of the philosophy you're describing is the same as every cult or religion ever. 'Our blessed beliefs are the true way and excuse any questionable acts done in the name of its furtherance, as we act in the name of the salvation of all mankind!'

 

[caveman1917]

Besides, this all conveniently ignores my original charge, which is that if you don't respect freedom of association, then you aren't an anarchist.

By inflicting upon others a form of interaction they do not consent to, you are violating their free association rights. Ergo, you are committing a violent act.

Inflicting a form of interaction upon whom, the windows? #AllWindowsMatter? Are you an animist?

The base pattern of the philosophy you're describing is the same as every cult or religion ever. 'Our blessed beliefs are the true way and excuse any questionable acts done in the name of its furtherance, as we act in the name of the salvation of all mankind!'

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't see how this can be so difficult. There's nothing contradictory there. If decision-making power over some object is assigned to some Jabba-person then it is implicitly taken away from all other Jabba-persons.

And when you break something, you explicitly take away the ability of anyone else to use it in its unbroken state. You've removed decision-making power from others. So breaking things isn't any different in that respect, and you're still left with no basis on which to call ownership violence but breaking things not violence.

I can tell the difference just fine.

Obviously not.

 

[Ziggurat]

What "additional nonverbal cue"?

The hilighted one, obviously:

Well, I think speech that fails to include the assumption that hurling a brick into a window is not a helpful form of additional nonverbal cue should create a liability, yes.

Jesus Christ on a pogostick, now you can't even follow simple grammar.

 

[caveman1917]

And when you break something, you explicitly take away the ability of anyone else to use it in its unbroken state.

No. The ability of anyone else to use it in its unbroken state was already explicitly taken away by the "owner". But then that state of affairs is the reason it ended up in a broken state instead.

You've removed decision-making power from others.

Hardly. Much less than you did with your belief system and enforcement gangs in the first place.

So breaking things isn't any different in that respect, and you're still left with no basis on which to call ownership violence but breaking things not violence.

I gave you the basis already.

Obviously not.

 

[caveman1917]

The hilighted one, obviously:



Jesus Christ on a pogostick, now you can't even follow simple grammar.

That's not an "additional non-verbal cue".

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you really entertaining a discussion with someone who thinks that breaking others possessions isn't a form of violence?

It is just silly, although it certainly explains why Black Bloc "Anarchist" Scumbags stole all of the environmental protesters food and water a couple of years ago during the NATO summit.

private property is an illusion, man! gobble gobble gobble.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not an "additional non-verbal cue".

Yes, caveman, it is. Seriously, this is reading comprehension 101. And you not only failed the first time, you can't even get it right when you're given the answer.

But again, I shouldn't be surprised. Grammar is a conspiracy. #anarchylogic

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, caveman, it is.

No it isn't. "Additional" to what would it be?

 

[theprestige]

No. The ability of anyone else to use it in its unbroken state was already explicitly taken away by the "owner". But then that state of affairs is the reason it ended up in a broken state instead.

Before the anarchist arrives, there is still hope for redemption. The owner may yet relent and make the use of more freely available. The freedom fighter may still take it and make the use of it more freely available. The world may yet be improved by the use of this thing.

But after the anarchist arrives, there is no more hope for redemption. The thing is destroyed, and no-one may ever benefit from its use again. Anarchists only ever make the world worse than it was before. Even property ownership does not diminish the world as much as anarchism does.

Also, "property ownership makes me destroy useful things!" is a profoundly childish excuse.

 

[Ziggurat]

No it isn't. "Additional" to what would it be?

The verbal cues. Duh.