Personal vs Private Property – Leftist Exception Totally Debunked
I am going to debunk this obvious "special pleading" argument that the left does when they separate personal property vs private property.
My assertion is that there is no difference, property is a homogenous concept that can't be subdivided, or perhaps it can but then all claims and characteristics of it must apply to all classes, you can't make exceptions to fit your agenda, that is a "special pleading" fallacy.
Now we know the left is "limitless", one of the best characteristic of the left is that they don't believe in limits. To them everything is the same, there are no rules, no permanence, everything is dynamic and endless for them. They don't believe in anything really aside from their ideologies that they justify their thoughts with, but deep down instinctually, everything is meaningless for them. The left is the ultimate form of hedonism and nihilism at the same time. So Communism would be a system of total meaningless-ness, where everything would be equal, the same, and without boundaries, like a dirty pond which is the same from every point of view.
In reality the left wants to abolish property as it is. In fact this was well known from their earlier literature and their current rhetoric. To them a Communist society is one without property to begin with.
So given these 2 assumptions, why the hell do they make a separate except class for personal property?
If we know they want to abolish all property, then what is with the distinction with the personal vs private property? I didn't figured this out until now.
I will tell you exactly why. They know full well that property is essential for a peaceful human society. They know this. And they also know that if they abolish all property, that would be the worst kind of slavery that would ever exist.
I mean you don't even own your body anymore, your body is not your property, so anyone could just do anything to you. Nothing would be sacred. Human life would be worth less than the life of a bacteria.
If you abolish property, you abolish humanity alltogether, and usher in the worst kind of slavery that can ever exist.
They know this. Why do you think they support feminism? Is rape moral for them? It's clearly an assault against a female's body which is her property.
Is murder moral? It's the worst kind of assault against a person's body, which is their core property.
So we know full well that these are properties, just like your house and your car, which you absolutely need in order to live a decent life. Your body, your house, your toothbrush are all your property. We know this, they know this.
So then why the fuck do they make a distinction between this and create a special class for this and call it "personal property", and exclude a factory or an office building from this?
It makes absolutely no sense given that even a vagina is a means of production. It creates babies. Do you realize what socializing that would mean? It's called gangrape, and that is extremely immoral.
Leftists are totally idiots who can't connect the dots together. There is no subclass in property, it's an all or nothing. You can't be half a slave, you are either a slave or a free person, the degree of enslavement is meaningless, because anything above 0 already implies that you are a slave.
So do you own your body? You should, but apparently in this statist system you don't. Therefore ironically you have no private property currently because everything you own is taxed and controlled.
We live in Communism right now, there is no private property in a system of government, not unless you are a monarch. And you are enslaved to it, so this is such an obvious yet pointless argument to begin with.
Submitted May 31, 2018 at 04:36PM by alexander7k
via reddit https://ift.tt/2J2546v Anarcho_Capitalism
Red Pill Project 