• ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The legal means also protect property. Otherwise someone who is stronger can just take whatever they like from someone who is weaker.

    • Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I specified private property (absentee ownership), which is distinct from personal property (active usage ownership).

      A house that I live in: personal property. A house I rent to someone else so they can live in it: private property.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That doesn’t change anything, does it? What’s stopping people from kicking me out of whatever place I am living in because they want it instead?

        • Prunebutt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The self-defensive mechanisms established by the community I live in.

          Anarchism doesn’t mean that humans can’t form societal structures. It just means that decisions are made bottom-up instead of top-down.

          Hierarchical society doesn’t stop anyone with “higher rank” from claiming my house e.g. to build a highway or coal mine.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? “The self-defensive mechanisms” is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.

            • Prunebutt@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, the self-defense mechanisms aren’t the same thing as “police”, since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.

              An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So when you have 150 people in a society and 80 vote for people with red hair should be burned as witches what happens then?

                • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don’t think that’s a realistic scenario, though.

                  If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?

                • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That’s akin to saying “what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?” It’s unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.