StrayCatFrump

Yeah. He does a lot of THEY do this; "WE" absolutely do not, with quite the definition of "we". As you say, a lot of the first part of that is pretty self-evident—so self-evident that lecturing people about it in a video seems rather patronizing, and perhaps even in the masturbatory "look how great we are for repeating this shit about THEM every other sentence," range of MSNBC-style content. Whereas the second part of it serves to obfuscate the sewage that comes out of liberal politics outside of the explicit, alt-right, clown world aesthetic sphere.

Very true. And this doesn't even mention rape and other sexual abuse/violence. If all we focus on is them murdering people, we're already ignoring forms of violence and harm that are heavily weighted toward non-cis-male demographics, are commonly ignored and erased, and cause enormous amounts of pain and suffering.

While murder is obviously the worst of acute instances of violence in that it is the act which can never be healed from or undone, police do orders of magnitude more violent harm every day if you take a broader look, and we must resist attempts to ignore that.

I do take exception to this being said by someone in the exchange:

And I think that loss is exacerbated by the fact that these are women who are killed by the same institutions that are designed to protect them.

These institutions—especially the police, but the legal system more generally as well—were absolutely never designed to protect women. Or any other people other than capitalists and politicians, for that matter. Any other nominal protection they do is incidental, and should also be scrutinized carefully with a skeptical eye as likely mythological. We really, really, really need to stop saying shit like this. Yesterday. In having a conversation about improving matters, do not propagate the very propaganda that serves directly to make it worse. And push back on it every time you do hear/see it.

I'm pretty sure I made obvious in the other comment tree that I'm not interested in your takes, and how defensively not-propertarian you insist you are while advocating for propertarian ideas.

When I say I'm done interacting with you and then start conversing with somebody else, that's not an invitation to jump in and continue with me. Fuck off.

Yeah. A couple of "timeless" quotes by the propertarian Murray Rothbard:

One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy...“Libertarians”...had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety.

We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines...we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists...We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

They knew damned well what they were doing. At least Rothbard didn't fully accept the appropriation of the latter term, even if others from his shitty movement have since then.

Don’t forget that the anarcho-capitalists have been muddying branding.

I hope there aren't any in this particular forum where that the title was editorialized for, though. "Anarcho-capitalists" (propertarians) aren't anarchists, and this whole forum (plus its moderators) should be very clear about that, and become very clear about it if they aren't. I mean, the very first thing in the "sidebar" info is a link to an essay by David Graeber which should inform any propertarians that we most definitely are not talking about them (especially the last two sections on listening to your mother from your early childhood and believing in people's better natures).

Capital rental benefits workers.

Wrong. Capital rental benefits the capitalist (e.g. the landlord).

Renting is buying....

Wrong. Weird, dumb misunderstanding that you are really irrationally obsessed with right now, and already explained. Rent is an exploitative property relation, that leaves the owner with ultimate power. If the dictator doesn't like you for any reason including that you don't follow his every edict (easily the equivalent of that "employment contract" you're so worried about), he terminates (e.g. evicts you). And I'm not sure why you keep putting @anarchism at the end of your comments, because you aren't advocating for it. You're just advocating for a property-based hierarchy with a different flavor.

Okay. Done with this exchange, and won't be replying further. Take care.

Somewhere between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with a strong dose of social ecology. Small communities—however sparsely (rural) or closely (urban) packed—governed horizontally through consensus models, and federating with one another for larger projects and to form responsive and resilient decentralized networks of distribution. (I'm not limiting "community" here to the strictly geographical interpretation of a communal neighborhood, though that's certainly one form; others would be worker-owned-and-self-managed cooperative enterprises, recreational clubs of various kinds, etc.)

Find ways to build successful but non-growth/non-profit-centered industries with modern technology but without the expectations of rampant consumerism, and with governance models strongly influenced by more horizontal and matrilineal societies, past and present. If we can't do it and keep smart phones, then sorry: ditch the smart phones. If we can't do it and keep modern medicine, then prioritize refining the model so we can.

There have been anarchists that do not oppose markets such as Proudhon

They didn't propose those markets as a way to preserve private property relations for the sake of capitalists, as you are doing.

And even those anarchists (and socialists more generally) who don't wholly oppose markets usually want to decrease their influence, especially regarding necessities like food, water, housing, health care, etc. "Here's how markets will fix that," is a galaxy-brained thing for any leftist to say at this point in history.

Sure, workers can always allegedly "go somewhere else". You realize that private property and capital accumulation and market distribution have, in actual practice, kept us from doing so very, very effectively, right? Like, there's one or two large enterprises that are worker-owned and allegedly democratically managed. And even on the local level, co-ops are incredibly difficult to establish. You sound like a fucking propertarian, telling people to "just go somewhere else/start one yourself if you don't like it." I'm not sure why you expect anyone to fall for that shit here.

Are you sure you're an anarchist and not a liberal? Because you're working awfully hard to propose market-based solutions in order to seemingly protect private property relations against anyone who might want radical, use-based community ownership.

LMAO. Yeah.

If the owner decides he doesn't wind up with enough of the value of producing the trains, he can kick out the train builders.

Same thing.

Anyway, again, owning the means of production shouldn't just be considered on the micro level like that. Like I said above, the MoP being privately owned also keeps workers from just going down the street and starting a new enterprise on their own (effectively "firing the boss"). Try it under capitalism and you'll all be seeing swift jail sentences for trespassing, vandalism, and theft at the very least.