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.