I'm not putting blame on either one of you specifically, I simply don't want you two fighting and flinging insults at each other. If that could be avoided, that'd be grand. You're correct, I didn't scroll quite far enough, he threw the first cussword, mea culpa. That doesn't change my suggestion - avoid getting into pointless fights going forward. We can get back to Joe Biden and his presidency, and leave any personal bickering out of it.
you link squatters rights, which just basically says that the police has the right to boot you off property with notice.
And I'm saying again, that was not your original argument. It was a lot more on the side of "well everyone can do it"
And my response is that your imagination is running a little too wild. If you really believe that all it takes to live off the land in the US is "imagination," you've clearly never once visited here or even reviewed a small portion of our property laws.
Imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand.
For how long? A day, a week, a month? I too prefer to do business with individuals instead of corporations whenever possible, but it's not something you can keep doing for your entire life. At least not here. Camping, hunting, fishing, logging, etc all require a license and/or property rights too.
So... your not going to read the rest of my statement, acknowledging your new/ or intended argument?
Your telling me that I was wrong about the previous notion. But then when I give you the chance/ allow you to change your argument/ give plausibility to it not being what you meant, and instead going with your currently presented statement, you don't reply to that?
are you kidding me...
here's an example. So your argument a few messages ago is "it's possible because technicality"
Here's another statement of yours that is completely contradictory. No mentions of law now that I'm looking back even came from you.
No explicit law.
Uhm... No. People have paid taxes long before the concept of capitalism was even conceived. In fact, taxation by the state is contrary to the principles of capitalism which are based on free exchange of goods and services between private parties. The state charging you for the privilege of being a subject is not a capitalist concept in any shape or form.
false, the form of taxation can come in different forms. In this specific case it comes in the form of capital/money. In which this case it is capitalism.
The existence of legal tender is not a cornerstone of capitalism. "Money" entered the equation long before capitalism did, its function is serving as a universal stand-in for the concept of value which simplifies trade. It specifically exists so that we don't have to argue about how many bags of flour equal one chicken. The state taking money away from you is not a form of capitalism, you are not in a voluntary service agreement with the state and you're not under a legally binding contract signed by both parties - you're paying by the virtue of being a citizen. Peasants in feudal society didn't pay a bag of wheat to their local Lord because the Lord was providing them with some sort of services they ordered, they paid because they were peasants operating on the Lord's land.
okay and?
Certain societies have implemented certain policies that also exist or are similar to those found in capitalist economic systems. That doesn't make them capitalist societies - you can't claim that they followed the principles of a theory that hasn't existed yet. Similarly, rulers have existed for centuries, but they were not "kings" until the first king was crowned and monarchy came into existence. Chieftains, maybe, but not kings.
Rulers haven't always existed. Not every society had one either. Your making really broad generalizations.
Any payment made to the state is not "capitalist" by definition, capitalism concerns private entities. The state is not a private entity - it's the state. The reason why it's not an element of capitalism, has never been an element of capitalism and cannot be capitalist is because the state is not a part of the market - the government has monopoly on taxation and state services. When you're unhappy with how your council patched up the road outside of your house, you can't give it a bad review on Google and call up a different council to do the job better. The government doesn't operate in a system of free market competition - you can't go start a new government to compete. The government just takes your money because it's the government and it can - whether what you own has any value or not is completely irrelevant. I don't know who told you that "if it concerns money, it's capitalism", but that's just wrong by definition. As far as rulers are concerned, even the most ancient societies we know of have been organised around one or multiple figures of authority like elders, patriarchs or matrons - there are very few exceptions. If you consider that to be broad strokes, I guess all I can do is shrug. Even non-human primates usually cluster around some kind of "alpha" monkey, it's entirely possible that it's in our DNA to seek out and follow leaders, or organise our societies in a manner that enables us to select our leadership. That's neither here nor there though.
