j reacts to the "right-libertarian" fantasy reality about police and property rights

actually, when i loudly throw in the faces of right-libertarians that the cops standing down would lead to riots and looting, i don't see that as a negative or a reason to argue in favour of policing or the state. i'm an anarchist, remember. what i'm pointing out is that their concept of statelessness is impossible: that real statelessness would not have the consequence of spontaneous order and people basically obeying the status quo (as though the cops are merely extraneous, unnecessary bureaucracy....), but of spontaneous redistribution of wealth.

and, i'm in favour of this.

what the right-libertarians don't understand is that the state exists to protect property rights. see, as an anarcho-communist, an actual anarchist, i don't like calling them libertarians - i'd rather just call them liberals. but, people that call themselves liberals almost universally understand the simple truth that the state exists explicitly to uphold property. not as a corollary. not as an accident. as it's primary and at times singular purpose. the state is property rights.

to argue you can have property rights without a state is incoherent.

that is my point.

right-libertarians want everything the state provides, but without a state itself. or to put it another way: they want a state, but they don't want to be taxed to pay for it.

the cops are never going to stand down, of course. but, if they did, i would expect that the looting and rioting would be temporary and fizzle out along with the inequality that exists as a function of the property that can't exist without them.

but, the looting would be legitimate. it would be a process of distributive justice.

that's what the revolution is, right?

you don't throw away the state for no reason. you throw it away because it upholds property, and property is at the root of all injustice.

what the revolution means is abolishing property.

so, how can you say there can be property after the revolution? this is counter-revolutionary, at best. but it's just status quo-ism, truly.

right-libertarians don't believe in a commons, though. they believe that the commons should be converted into private property. they'll argue that rivers and lakes and even sections of the air should be sold off, that nothing at all should be under common ownership. in fact, that's the most common answer you hear from them to the global warming issue: property rights. in their minds, if you sold all the green spaces off to private owners then those private owners would ensure the land is taken care of. if you sold the air off to private investors, they would keep it clean to maximize their investment. and, then they can sue each other over rights-infringements whenever somebody pollutes their air.