[Palmyrene]

I hope I don't accidentally refresh this.

Private property can be guaranteed by any group of people who is strong enough to enforce it.

No not really generally because there is no group of people strong enough to enforce it. If people are determined to reject your claims of property, especially in an anarchist society, there is no amount of people capable of doing so.

It requires people to respect those property rights which requires consent.

Thieves exist as long as there's scarcity and people desire what others have. I'm sure they've existed in every society ever.

Thieves exist when basic needs aren't available which they would in an anarchist society due to the proper distribution of collective force i.e. other communities or unions sharing the resources they lack in exchange for aid when they themselves are in need.

Thievery won't exist in the same level as it does in anarchist societies. In Syria now there is a big thief problem and 9/10 they're usually poor young men or children who need to make money but can't by conventional means.

Some hierarchy is unavoidable in a complex society, but even if it weren't hierarchical, that wouldn't make it anarchist.

1. No it is. In fact hierarchy has been proven to be completely inefficient in the complexities of modern society.

2. Yes it would. Anarchism is the opposite of hierarchy. It's literally in the etymology of the name.

That was only a single slide. There are others based on archeological evidence, showing the same picture. Under the link I posted.

Dude, it still only shows tribes from the 19th century. If they had archeological evidence from before that wouldn't you think they'd put it in?

[Rugoz]

No not really generally because there is no group of people strong enough to enforce it. If people are determined to reject your claims of property, especially in an anarchist society, there is no amount of people capable of doing so.

It requires people to respect those property rights which requires consent.

Sure there is, if you have 2 people who respect property rights and 1 who doesn't, the 2 can make the third "consent".

Thieves exist when basic needs aren't available which they would in an anarchist society due to the proper distribution of collective force i.e. other communities or unions sharing the resources they lack in exchange for aid when they themselves are in need.

Thievery won't exist in the same level as it does in anarchist societies. In Syria now there is a big thief problem and 9/10 they're usually poor young men or children who need to make money but can't by conventional means.

That is nonsense. Thieves exist in industrialized countries where the basic needs (and more) are guaranteed by the government. A lot more would exist if theft wasn't illegal. There's no limit to people's greed. Granted, it's more common in poorer countries.

1. No it is. In fact hierarchy has been proven to be completely inefficient in the complexities of modern society.

2. Yes it would. Anarchism is the opposite of hierarchy. It's literally in the etymology of the name.

1. Yawn
2. There's nothing hierarchical about 51 people forcing their stuff on the other 49, yet it's hardly anarchist, though my understanding of the term anarchist might be wrong.

Dude, it still only shows tribes from the 19th century. If they had archeological evidence from before that wouldn't you think they'd put it in?

There's a slide with archeological evidence under the same link, where it says BCE.

[Palmyrene]

Sure there is, if you have 2 people who respect property rights and 1 who doesn't, the 2 can make the third "consent".

No, they can't because the 1 will find a way to express their lack of consent moreso than if they had decided something else. Probably in the destruction of the property itself.

And if these 3 people aren't the only people in the world, then the 1 can tell others of his injustice and, if people had an entire fucking revolution dedicated in part to get rid of private property, you bet your ass many anarchist institutions are going to give a shit.

That is nonsense. Thieves exist in industrialized countries where the basic needs (and more) are guaranteed by the government. A lot more would exist if theft wasn't illegal. There's no limit to people's greed. Granted, it's more common in poorer countries.

Read what I said, thievery won't exist as much as it does in hierarchial societies. In industrial societies, the theft is of other items beyond basic needs. In a society driven by needs and thus anyone who wants something will, if they put in some of their own labor, get it then the chances of people resorting to thievery are low.

1. Yawn

Alright you've yawned now make an counterargument.

2. There's nothing hierarchical about 51 people forcing their stuff on the other 49, yet it's hardly anarchist, though my understanding of the term anarchist might be wrong.

It is hierarchial due giving themselves decisioning making power that they didn't have. If no one believed in the idea that the majority has the right to impose itself upon the minority it would get far more complicated fast.

You might see the 51 and 48 break off into several groups of people with differing opinion and by that point no one can impose theirself upon others. Humans are symbolic creatures and have different personalities. No one is going to be comfortable with imposing themselves on the minority.

There's a slide with archeological evidence under the same link, where it says BCE.

I'll check that out then edit my post to add my response.

[Rugoz]

No, they can't because the 1 will find a way to express their lack of consent moreso than if they had decided something else. Probably in the destruction of the property itself.

The 1 can voice his consent but it's irrelevant because the other 2 have the power to beat him to a pulp (assuming they're all of equal strength). The 1 can flee, but only if he isn't somehow tied to the place he lives. Or he can simply decide not to steal from the 2.

And if these 3 people aren't the only people in the world, then the 1 can tell others of his injustice and, if people had an entire fucking revolution dedicated in part to get rid of private property, you bet your ass many anarchist institutions are going to give a shit.

Why would the others think property rights are an injustice? Property rights exist because the vast majority thinks they're just.

Read what I said, thievery won't exist as much as it does in hierarchial societies. In industrial societies, the theft is of other items beyond basic needs. In a society driven by needs and thus anyone who wants something will, if they put in some of their own labor, get it then the chances of people resorting to thievery are low.

A society where everyone gets what he contributes through labor will inevitably be unequal, because people don't work equally hard or are equally productive. In some ways less unequal (less wealthy rentiers) in other ways more unequal (invalids or people with mental health issues would get nothing). Thieves would obviously exist as well, why work for stuff when you can steal it? Again, thiefs would have to be punished.

Alright you've yawned now make an counterargument.

I cannot make an counter-argument when there's no argument to begin with. If you claim that something is proven, back it up, otherwise it's only proof of your laziness.

It is hierarchial due giving themselves decisioning making power that they didn't have. If no one believed in the idea that the majority has the right to impose itself upon the minority it would get far more complicated fast.

You might see the 51 and 48 break off into several groups of people with differing opinion and by that point no one can impose theirself upon others. Humans are symbolic creatures and have different personalities. No one is going to be comfortable with imposing themselves on the minority.

Humans cannot break up into groups indefinitely because they're highly interdependent. Sure, everybody could live by himself, but then everybody would live the life of a caveman. There would be scarcity and individuals would fight over berry bushes.

[Palmyrene]

The 1 can voice his consent but it's irrelevant because the other 2 have the power to beat him to a pulp (assuming they're all of equal strength). The 1 can flee, but only if he isn't somehow tied to the place he lives. Or he can simply decide not to steal from the 2.

Like I said. These aren't the only 3 people in the world. Groups don't exist in vacuums.

And even then the 1 could take both of them on and win since human violence is not a numbers game. It's about skill and strength.

Regardless, no one is going to want to risk violence. In fact the entire why we've succeeded as a species is because we've avoided those situations of random violence due to disagreement.

Why do you think chimpanzees haven't evolved? They're too aggressive and sociopathic.

Why would the others think property rights are an injustice? Property rights exist because the vast majority thinks they're just.

No they exist to legitimatize conquests and land acquisition of nobles and aristocrats and later this system grew to capitalism.

Feudalism was the first stage which established private property and none of the land acquired by feudal lords waa consensually. Before then the land was in commons.

A society where everyone gets what he contributes through labor will inevitably be unequal, because people don't work equally hard or are equally productive.

1. The point isn't to be completely equal. It's to just be more equitable than the system we have now which it is. At least in this system you couldn't make money by just owning land or moving money around.

2. That depends on how you value labor and there are many ways or ideas on how to properly reward it. Anarchists have thought of many arrangements. I could explain them if you would like.

In some ways less unequal (less wealthy rentiers) in other ways more unequal (invalids or people with mental health issues would get nothing).

That's pretty presumptuous of you. For starters common goods such as healthcare, housing, water, food, etc. would be in the interest of everyone to be maintained and I expect such "sectors" in the economy to be made communal.

Let me extrapolate: you settle for a single convention—equality—and assume, on that basis, that each individual has something to contribute to society that is worthy of the day's bread. So the communist approach to compensating collective force is by assuming all needs are shared needs and so let anyone who has contributed anything at all access to communal resources.

These communal resources would obvious include healthcare.

Thieves would obviously exist as well, why work for stuff when you can steal it? Again, thiefs would have to be punished.

1. There would be far less thieves because most thieves in capitalist societies steal for a living or to avoid poverty/starvation. Remove that threat and

2. Given how property dynamics work in an anarchist society, I'm not sure there would be a point to theft at all.

I cannot make an counter-argument when there's no argument to begin with. If you claim that something is proven, back it up, otherwise it's only proof of your laziness.

There is an argument. Hierarchy is incapable of operating in present conditions. The fact that many states are seemingly falling apart and become incapable of maintaining their hegemony (especially due to the internet) is evidence of this.

Humans cannot break up into groups indefinitely because they're highly interdependent. Sure, everybody could live by himself, but then everybody would live the life of a caveman. There would be scarcity and individuals would fight over berry bushes.

That's not my point.

If you have a disagreement you can each do your own thing and share information or resources between yourself. Think of it as Hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The two groups are thesis and antithesism and the sharing of information and resources leads to synthesis.