Complicated issue, cause your domicile isn’t “private property” it’s PERSONAL property. In the anarchist utopia, you still can’t just barge into someone’s house.
Or rather you can, but if you do that to my neighbor I’m going to mutual self defense you in the face.
I think the comic poorly understands both the argument it's opposing and the argument its making. Right of Conquest seems to be the argument the wolf is making. It is an a-moral argument, but a solid one.If you take something and are able to keep it. It is effectively yours.Violence all the way down
Nah but, he’s an anarchist and he’s implying violence against capitalists is only justified because of the violence inherent in the system, so that doesn’t really track.
Though on the other hand, why is he blowing down the other two houses?
Yea, seems like the wolf isn't really am anarchist. Hence my earlier comment about the comic being confused and not seeming to understand the argument it's apparently making.
You defo need to read some Proudhon, you're misunderstanding the fundamental concepts.
... or you're just trolling because anarchists will take the time to reply, I cant tell which.
Might = Right is antithetical to anarchism & rooted in classical western colonial empiricism, via Seneca.
I'm aware that might making right is antithetical to the principles espoused by anarchists. But it's my view that it is the inevitable product of anarchism, even if they don't intend it.
I like a lot of the principles of anarchism and I share the goals of a peaceful and free society, with no class and equality for all. It's just that the actual proposals that I read from anarchists all seem designed to generate horrific outcomes that run counter to those dreams.
What are you talking about? Never doing violence outside of self defense is a fundamental anarchist principle. They justify violence against corporations and stuff as mutual self defense against systems of oppression. That’s not “might makes right”.
This is a difficult discussion to have in short form social media. But basically Anarchism either has to have laws and law enforcement or else it lets local elites use their might as they want.
Because the first option is specifically forbidden, the second becomes inevitable.
Now, you're going to tell me that there won't be elites, but that's just a fantasy. There will be elites, even if purely based on social popularity. And some of those elites will violate norms.
