threat of violence is what keeps private property private. That has been shown in every society where that force is not present.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
threat of violence is what keeps private property private. That has been shown in every society where that force is not present.
Yes, but the same is still true for common property. I own both private and common property. If I wanted to use the common property in a manner not agreed upon by my co-owner, force would be employed to stop me. Threat of force stops me from attempting it.
you do not own common property, you only use it. It is based on free association and free access
"you do not own common property, you only use it. It is based on free association and free access"
But I don't have free use, do I? I am bound by a contract both legal and social and that contract is enforced through force.
"its actually a social construct, as it is a product of the mind."
If I possess a rock, I have full control over its access and use. I did not gain that from a social contract or any other contract. It is simply a fact derived from the situation, and yes, I maintain that control through force or threat of force, but that force would only be a response to an entity trying to take it away from me against my will.
"The only way to govern without somebody forcing social constructs on another through violence is consensus, and private property and democracy of any kind are incompatible."
Consensus, by definition is a social contract...or often even a legal one. It is human nature to buck the consensus. What will happen then? I assumed that you were an anarchist., my apologies. What you propose is mob rule which carries a very explicit threat of force to the individual. The only conceivable way to bring about "consensus" is to purge, through force, those that refuse to toe the line. Even then, you never have a true consensus, but a forced one from which people will go through great lengths to try to escape. This has been shown time and time again throughout history.
"The only conceivable way to bring about "consensus" is to purge, through force, those that refuse to toe the line"
actually its through debate until a conclusion is reached. If a conclusion can not be reached the people simply stop interacting. If you look at examples from tribes in africa there was far less violence than we have today under capitalism
And much smaller societies, but I agree that consensus is more easily reached in smaller groups. I believe the magic number is around 200.
society itself can easily be built of smaller groups
". It is simply a fact derived from the situation"
that's not what logic is m8.
It comes from your control over the rock
my control was not brokered though interaction with others.
stopping others requires force
Only if others do not agree that I should possess the rock.