RE: So, you're an anarchist?
"What's your reasoning for claiming that private property can not exist without a government?"
private property is in essence control over the tools another uses. This control can only come from two groups, directly from the capitalist or by the government to protect "rights". Unless the capitalist is the strongest one there and the only one with a weapon, he will have to hire guards, without the police to protect it. There are only two things stopping the guards from taking control, a sense of loyalty and the government. The only reason the government doesn't take control is the "sense of loyalty" of the police.
Essentially you need a government or a set of guards that become the new government, otherwise it is impossible for the capitalist to assert his rule. Because that is what private ownership is dictatorial, rule over a piece of land or machinery.
"Nope, capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts. What is rent but property taxes, wage-labor but a bourgeois tax on the working class, and national borders but the private property of the dominant, monopolizing corporation called "the state"? Instead, they are two expressions of coercive hierarchy, a society based on injustice and inequality.
They tell similar lies, as both bourgeois democracy and capitalism perpetuate themselves by simulating bottom-up power: you are given a sham of a vote in democracy, just as with capitalism pricing mechanisms. That is, a boycott is indistinguishable from a get-out-the-vote campaign, and equally (in-)effective, as its a series of choices in a game designed by the ruling class where every result is "they win".
In force the two are indistinguishable also: Any private property enforcement system sufficient to protect capitalists' interests is indistinguishable from a state. This includes "private security officers" as much as it includes statist ones --- both are intended to protect capitalist / statist interests in a given region, and maintain oppressive systems and conduits of power."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/11mr9p/can_capitalism_exist_without_the_state/
Capitalism can not exist without violence. The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence. There is no besides violence to combat somebody willing to give their life to stop you, that's what the military is for.
Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. On this topic, I suggest that you check out Democracy – The God That Failed. http://store.mises.org/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx
"capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts."
This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state.
"Capitalism can not exist without violence."
You can see my post about capitalism where I describe what it is, and that it does not require violence here. https://steemit.com/economics/@pomperipossa/capitalism-a-reply-to-kenny-part-two
"The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence."
You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer.
You can watch this youtube video about how a society could function without a state here.
this video explains it well
Notice how ancaps haven't done anything? That's probably because its a stupid ideology.
As I explained, private ownership of property itself is a state. Non-violent anything doesn't exist, that's stupid. All it would take is a single person to kill every pacifist in existence if nobody used violence to protect them. Again, the rich right now already have nothing against bombing children using white phosphorous and genocide for profit, you really think the lack of a government would change that? That's as delusional as you can be.
Capitalism rewards greed. Capitalism rewards underhanded and violent tactics for more profit. Capitalism rewards death, starvation, and slavery. Capitalism must be destroyed for the worker to be free. Capitalism must be destroyed for the world to be anarchist.
To top is off I will quote the slogan of the first self-proclaimed anarchist: "Property is theft". Although future anarchists have followed up saying that's wrong. They said property doesn't objectively exist and thus can not be theft. It is simply a state. Taxes are rent. Wages are wages and Property is Slavery
"Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. "
only under capitalism
"This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state."
property rights can not exist without a state.
Property rights only exist through the state. Ownership is not an objective concept but a legal fiction.
Ownership literally just means control. Control can only exist through violence or threat of violence, the guards that are employed to keep private property in existence are the new police of the new dictator you call the owner.
"You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer."
remember when Gandhi told britian to lay down their weapons and not fight the nazis? That would have worked well, he's totally not delusional or anything lmao.