How would anarcho-anything solve the theft problem if the thieves are physically larger than you?

>society would be organized in a way that power isn’t directed toward physical force and power relations
>expecting humans to change their nature
>having to rely on physical force to implement obscure ideas of federated and unionized, non-physical power

Am I missing something here?

>you are outgunned..

lol, a nigger thinking whites are outgunned by niggers.... fucking pathetic.

Hunt them for sport.

private property is not grounded in human nature. for most of human history and prehistory the institution of private property didnt exist.

it takes all the police of this world to hold human nature in check. since without police there is no private property

>How would anarcho-anything solve the theft problem if the thieves are physically larger than you?

... police is nothing but a commercial security service! in an anarchistic community they would just pay some badass guys to enforce the laws the community has set up, nothing more or less -> btw, how long does it takes police comes when someone trys to kill you in a dark street? ... police is overrated.

>you are outgunned
lmao wut

Good

Yeah, human nature is relative to how people produce and therefore a society which has no private property or hierarchical relations would make it inherently cooperative. Also historical communes and revolutionary collectives have been armed and defended themselves militarily and domestically.

>private property is not grounded in human nature
Complete nonsense
private property is just an extension of territoriality and I'd love the hear the argument that humans and/or their predecessors aren't territorial

>theft is a by-product of private property.. no private property means no theft dummy
semantics
so you just end up with the same inequality of resources but with different terms
christ i'd forgotten how utterly retarded anarchists are

>for most of human history and prehistory the institution of private property didnt exist.
Yes it did. The fact that the tribe shared most things with each other doesn't mean there wasn't any kind of private property.

Can't steal stuff if there's no property

Already did 300 years ago

Attached: 220px-Maurice_Quentin_de_La_Tour_-_Portrait_of_Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_-_adjusted.jpg (220x279, 16K)

>society would be organized in a way that power isn't directed toward physical force and power relations, it would be federated and unionized.
What is this even supposed to mean? Power is inherently "directed towards physical force and power relations."

people in a given territory shared among themselves what they had. native american did indeed stole, but when they did it was from hostile tribes (actually it can be hardly said that the act of "stealing" horses, for example, constitutes "theft" as we understand the term. it more accurate to say the the act of taking what is not of your tribe is a war act in the context of honor cultures like the Indians lived in)

"theft" as we know it today is when a person or persons is unable or unwilling to get life necessities by selling himself on the market.

when the indians "stole" it was rather a proof of ones prowess as a warrior in an honor-culture context.

when an indian hunted a dear or when a woman harvested corn it wasn't their private property, it was placed in common

That is true, I meant to say that power relations would be nonexistent in place of federated unions.

I'm a fucking brainlet, but under an arcarcho system there is no government and your only claim to private property is your ability to defend private property. So if a pack of wild niggers takes your shit, then you lose said claim. That's part of the reason why this system sucks ass. Ten people acting alone is not as strong as ten people acting together. 100 people can build a much better bridge in a year than one person can in 100 years because of the economy of scale.

So yeah, I'd say fuck off and then reclaim your shit by engaging in manageable skirmishes, preferably 1:1 with the odds in your favor (ambush). But then again, I'm just a fat fuck who has never shot a gun, so what do I know?

>when you realize might makes right
This is why lolbergs are always doomed to fail. Atomization is suicide.

Attached: getsitpilgrim.gif (375x202, 989K)

>you can't just call the cops
that's where you're wrong nigger

>some rogue retards manage to have more guns than a society organized around voluntary association and peaceful development of armaments for the purpose of preventing just such styles of chaos
I bet you think firefighting has to be a public good too

Do I look like an Iroqueer to you?
>Indians didn’t have a concept of private property
Couldn’t be more wrong. You didn’t steal valuable items. You shared with family. You’re forgetting Natives lives in large families.
In a household relatives aren’t thieves if they all eat the same food, even if only one person makes the food.
The mother isn’t a communist claiming the kids are capitalists for taking the fruits of her labor.

Theft today is taking something that isn’t yours.
The concept of mine and ours are the same. Can’t have one without the other, hence your position is self contradicting.

It’s worth stating you’re using ancient hunter gathers as an example, we are nothing like them. You’d be better off using chimpanzees as an example since chimps today have at least encountered the modern world.

Lol at those used 20 year old laptops with nigger finger smudges on it.

Btw how are these 55kg 14 year olds physically larger than anyone?

why do people steal? becouse they dont have access to means of subsistence

if i dont have bread, and i dont have the land, knowledge, tolls to make it then ill steal if i dont want to go hungry. this is why people steal-becouse they have no community. under capitalism they are atomized producers-consumers and if one is unable to sell his labor as a commodity on the market, or unwilling to do so (being a basically a whore is degrading) then thievery is the next best thing.

anarchism\communism is the possess by which people form a community. its freedom from the market.

when a community forms people can sustain themselves and thievery as we understand it cannot exist

ah yes, niggers in OP are hungry, thats why they stole shoes and televisions... neck yourself faggot.

nothing wrong with that what so ever. everything that is done by the proletariat belongs to the proletariat. the proletariat cannot steal from itself just like you can steal what is already yours. the proletariat can only re appropriate what was expropriated from him.

communism/anarchism means taking over everything.

youtube.com/watch?v=C-Bsj02ql_I

thats nice, but communism/anarchy absolutely can not work so long as niggers exist in the country.

vice.com/it/article/j57aa4/6-de-maio-lisbona-foto-del-quartiere-dimenticato-di-lisbona

As Keith Flint used to say, (rip) Be "Always outnumbered, never outgunned"

that's just an old trick of the burguesia to split the poor along racial lines. under this bait you suppose to have more in common with the white rich person then you do with the fellow black poor. you're just been hooked. you took the bait.

it wasn't the poor black who kicked all those people from their houses after the financial collapse of 2008, (which was nothing but a huge transfer of wealth)

today black people represent not so much the classic exploited working class as they are of a "surplus humanity" and as automaton is set to increase more and more whites gonna fall under this category. in other words you are the "nigger" of tomorrow.. and you'll be looting shoulder to shoulder with "niggers" just like the white yellow vests do now