Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was "sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?" I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.

I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third-party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can't compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a "state".

Now, I've been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Requiring a state to protect private property isn't "the state running things". Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. "The state running shit" would be like... a planned economy.

Don't equivocate the two, yeah?

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look friend, it should be clear that "things", in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of "state" to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I've been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I'm open to hearing alternative views.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's fucking bonkers that you think the definition of "things" is what's at issue here.

I'm not disputing that lmao. But upholding private property law is not running the market. That would be, like i said, a planned economy.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's bonkers is that you still haven't offered up your position so it's difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn't a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I never mentioned personal property. I'm talking about private property.